* OCT  21  1904  * 


■ 


■ * ^ 


- !>:  * 


$ 


jpGiy 


T.  B.  PETERSON, 

No.  98  Chesnut  Street,  Philadelphia, 

Has  just  Published,  and  for  Sale,  Stereotype  Editions  of  the  following  Works, 

WHICH  CAN  BE  OBTAINED  OF  ALL  THE  PRINCIPAL  BOOKSELLERS  AND  NEWS  AGENTS 
THROUGHOUT  THE  UNITED  STATES  AT  PUBLISHER’S  PRICES. 

The  Trade  supplied  at  the  lowest  rates. 


The  Manoeuvring'  Mother.  By  the  author  of  “Wilfulness  of  Woman,”  “History  of  a Flirt,” 
etc.  etc.  This  book  should  he  read  by  eyery  mother  and  daughter  living.  The  consequences  of  match- 
making and  manoeuvring  are  here  described  from  real  life,  and  it  is  a powerfully  written  work  by  one  of  the 
best  authors  living.  One  volume,  octavo,  paper  cover,  25  cents. 

Sybil  Lennar d.  A Record  of  Woman’s  Life.  By  Mrs.  GREY,  author  of  “ The  Duke  and  the 
Cousin,”  “ The  Young  Prima  Donna,”  “ The  Gambler’s  Wife,”  etc.,  entirely  new  and  never  before  pub- 
lished, complete  in  one  large  octavo  volume,  price  25  cents. 

“ It  is  in  truth  a tale  of  powerful  and  highly  wrought  interest.  The  delineation  of  character  and  passion 
is  vivid,  bold  and  masterly,  and  the  narration  and  description  never  for  an  instant  flag  or  grow  tame.  The 
searcher  after  strong  emotions  and  new  sensations  cannot  fail  to  find  himself  greatly  gratified  in  the  perusal 
of  this  splendid  novel.” — Philadelphia  City  Item. 

The  Beautify!  French  Girl ; or,  the  Daughter  of  Monsieur  Fontanbleu.  A tale  of  thrilling 

interest,  found.»£fyn  facts  in  real  life,  one  volume,  octavo.  Price  25  cents. 

The  Insna.  v?  ’ a sti  v of  Woman’s  Heart-  By  LADY  CHARLOTTE  BURY,  author  of  “ Flirta- 
tion,” “ The  Dj.  ,ed,”|.c.,  one  volume,  octavo,  paper  cover,  25  cts. 

Father  Clement.  A most  thrilling  and  powerful  story.  By  the  author  of  “ Abbey  of  Innismoyle,” 

“ Dunallen,”  etc.  Paper  cover,  25  cents,  or  bound  in  muslin,  37z  cents. 

The  Duke  and  the  Cousin.  By  Mrs.  GREY,  author  of  “ Sybil  Lennard,”  the  “ Young  Prima 
Donna,”  “ The  Gambler’s  Wife,”  etc.  This  is  one  of  the  most  interesting  books  ever  printed,  and  will 
enchain  the  attention  of  the  reader  from  the  commencement  to  the  end.  One  volume,  octavo,  25  cents. 

Legends  of  Mexico.  By  GEORGE  LIPPARD,  author  of  “ Legends  of  the  American  Revolution,” 
etc.  The  author,  in  his  peculiar  style,  has  faithfully  followed  the  American  banner  from  the  Heights  of 
Bunker  Hill  to  the  mountain  passes  of  sunny  Mexico,  giving  a faithful  description  of  all  the  battles,  charges, 
camps,  marches,  &c.,  of  our  army  in  the  country  of  the  Montezumas.  For  the  low  price  of  twenty-five 
cents,  any  one  can  procure  a handsome  volume  of  136  pages,  into  which  the  prominent  events  of  the  pre- 
sent war  have  been  compressed,  with  those  Legends  of  the  Camp  and  the  Field  which  give  life  to  history, 
and  make  it  speak  to  our  hearts. 

Neuropathy;  or,  the  true  principles  of  the  art  of  Healing  the  Sick.  Being  an  explanation  of  the  action 
of  GALVANISM,  ELECTRICITY,  and  MAGNETISM,  in  the  cure  of  Disease,  and  a comparison  between 
their  powers,  and  those  of  Drugs,  or  Medicines,  of  all  kinds,  with  a view  to  determine  their  relative  value, 
and  proper  uses.  By  Frederick  Rollick,  M.  D.,  lecturer  on  Anatomy  and  Physiology,  the  Origin  of  Life, 
etc.  Illustrated  with  an  Anatomical  Plate  of  the  Human  Form,  colored  to-  life.  Paper  cover,  price  25  cts. 

Outlines  of  Anatomy  and  Physiology,  illustrated  in  a novel  manner,  8y  a large  coloured  Plate, 
which  dissects  by  means  of  moveable  layers,  from  the  outer  surface  down  to  the  spine,  exhibiting  the 
organs  in  their  places,  and  many  of  them  in  sections,  designed  to  facilitate  the  study  of  Anatomy  and 
Physiology.  It  is  invaluable  for  students,  teachers,  or  for  private  study.  The  explanations  are  familiar, 
and  divested  of  technicalities  ; and  is  still  further  illustrated  by  separate  Wood-Cuts  throughout  the  work,  and 
a portrait  of  the  author.  By  Frederick  Hollick,  M.  D.  One  volume,  quarto,  bound,  price  ONE  DOLLAR. 

History  of  the  Inquisition  in  Spain,  from  the  time  of  its  Establishment  to  the  Reign  of  Ferdinand 
VII.  Composed  from  the  Original  Documents  of  the  Archives  of  the  Supreme  Council,  and  from  those  of 
subordinate  Tribunals  of  the  Holy  Office.  By  D.  JUAN  ANTONIO  LLORENTE,  formerly  secretary  of 
the  Inquisition,  Chancellor  of  the  University  of  Toledo,  Knight  of  the  Order  of  Charles  III.,  etc.  One 
volume,  oetavo,  20S  pages — Half  cloth,  50  cents  ; paper  cover,  37  j cents. 

Liebig’s  Agricultural  Chemistry;  or,  Chemistry  in  its  application  to  Agriculture  and  Phvsiology. 
By  JUSTUS  LIEBIG,  M.  D.,  Professor  of  Chemistry  in  the  University  of  Giessen,  etc.,  etc.  From  5ie 
last  London  edition,  revised  and  enlarged.  One  volume,  octavo,  paper  cover,  price  25- cents. 

Liebig’s  Animal  Chemistry;  or.  Organic  Chemistry,  in  its  application  to  Physiology  and  Pa- 
thology. By  Professor  JUSTUS  LIEBIG.  From  the  last  London  edition,  revised  and  enlarged.  One 
volume,  octavo,  paper  cover,  price  25  cents. 

An  edition  of  Professor  Liebig’s  two  works.  Agricultural  and  Animal  Chemistry,  is  also  issued,  neatly 
bound  together,  in  one  large  volume,  octavo,  price  62J  cents. 

Flirtation,  a Story  of  the  Heart.  By  LADY  CHARLOTTE  BURY,  author  of  the  “ Divorced,” 
“The  Insnared,”  etc.,  etc.  This  work  should  be  read  by  every  unmarried  person  in  the  land.  The 
awful  consequences  of  flirting  are  here  vividly  portrayed.  One  volume,  octavo,  paper  cover,  price  25  cents. 

The  Divorced;  Founded  on  Facts  in  Real  Life.  By  LADY  CHARLOTTE  BURY,  author  of 
“ Flirtation,”  “ The  Insnared,”  etc.,  etc.  It  is  decidedly  one  of  the  most  useful  works,  as  a lesson  to  the 
young,  ever  issued  from  the  Press.  One  volume,  octavo,  paper  cover,  price  25- cents. 

Abbey  of  Innismoyle.  A Story  of  Another  Century.  By  the  author  of  “Father  Clement,”  cloth, 
3?j  cents  ; paper  cover,  25  cents. 

Any  of  the  above  works,  neatly  bound  in  paper  cavers,  can  be  sent  by  mail  to  any  part  of  the  United 
States  at  a trifling  expense  for  Postage. 

Any  of  the  above  works  will  be  sold  to  Booksellers,  News  Agents  and  Pedlars  at  a very  liberal  discount. 
We  have  on  hand  a large  asortment  of  all  the  New  Books,  Magazines,  Cheap  Publications,  Maps  and 
Travellers’  Guides  of  all  descriptions,  which  we  will  sell  at  the  lowest  prices. 

. All  orders  from  Country  Agents,  Booksellers,  Pedlars  and  Canvassers,  are  respectfully  solieited,  and  all 
r)  orders  attended  to  by  return  of  mail,  stage,  steam-boat  or  express,  at  publisher’s  lowest  cash  prices.  ( 

ADDRESS,  T.  B.  PETERSOJT,  JTo.  98  Chesnut  St.,  Phila.  ( 

Gv  . . /ZOA 


i 


'i 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 

Twelfth  Edition,  Revised  and  Corrected,  with  •>'  Appendix. 

T.  B.  PETERSON,  Publisher. 

No.  98  CHESNUT  STREET,  ONE  DOOR  ABOVE  THIRD,  PHILADELPHIA. 
siekeotvY imim  January,  1 8 48.  feme  ss  esws. 

ANCIENT  EGYPT 


A SERIES  OF  CHAPTERS  ON 

EARLY  EGYPTIAN  HISTORY; 

ARCHAEOLOGY, 

AND  OTHER  SUBJECTS 

CONNECTED  WITH 

HIEROGLYPHICAL  LITERATURE. 

vX 

BY  GEORGE  R.  GLIDDON, 

MEMBER  CP  THE  “ EGYPTIAN  SOCIETY  ” OP  CAIRO CORRESPONDING 

MEMBER  OF  THE  “ UNITED  STATES’  NAVAL  LYCEUM,”  BROOKLYN, 

NEW  YORK CORRESPONDENT  OF  THE  “ ACADEMY  OF  NATURAL 

SCIENCES,”  PHILADELPHIA CORRESPONDING  MEMBER  OF 

THE  “ NATIONAL  INSTITUTION,”  WASHINGTON 

MEMBER  OF  THE  “ ORIENTAL  SOCIETY,” 

BOSTON, 

AND  FORMERLY 

UNITED  STATES  CONSUL  FOR  CAIRO, 

IN  EGYPT. 


' (ini  si  fa  quel  che  si  sa ; 
E si  sa  quel  che  si  fa.” 


V *1  nnnn/v  11 0 nil 

| ^ in  * i i in 

YEAR  1843 MONTH  3 — DAY  15. 


TO 

RICHARD  K.  HAIGHT,  Esq.: 

NEW  YORK. 

In  dedicating  to  you,  my  dear  Sir,  the  first  Chapters  on  Hierology, 
that  have  ever  issued  from  an  American  Press,  I acquit  myself  of  a 
gratifying  duty  toward  a gentleman  who,  by  the  deep  interest  he 
takes  in  Egyptian  subjects,  has  been  induced  to  render  manifold 
and  indispensable  assistance  to  the  Author. 

When  we  parted  at  Cairo,  in  the  spring  of  1836,  we  little  ex- 
pected that  circumstances  would  allow  me  the  pleasure  of  sojourning 
in  your  vicinity  ; still  less  did  we  contemplate,  that  I should  turn  my 
almost  exclusive  attention  to  Nilotic  paleography.  Some  of  the 
causes  are  hereinafter  explained;  with  the  others  you  are  acquainted. 


At  the  time  of  your  travels  in  the  East,  our  “ Egyptian  Society  " 
had  just  been  founded  at  Cairo  ; and  the  encouragement  afforded  by 
Mr.  Randolph  and  yourself,  to  our  then  embryo  institution,  is  there 
on  record.  Since  that  period,  our  Society  has  become  in  Egypt,  the 
central  point  of  researches  into  all  that  concerns  its  most  interesting 
regions ; but,  it  was  not  till  1839,  that  the  larger  works  of  the  new 
Archaeological  School  were  in  our  library  ; or  that  it  was  in  my 
power  to  become  one  of  Ciiampollion’s  disciples.  In  fact,  it  was 
not  till  about  1839,  that  the  brilliant  results  of  the  recent,  and  still 
progressing  discoveries  were  accessible  in  Egypt ; while,  at  the 
present  day,  the  knowledge  of  these  results  is  confined  to  a compa- 
ratively limited  circle  in  Europe.  A mass  of  erudite  works,  put 
forth  by  eminent  Savans,  chiefly  at  the  expense  of  enlightened  gov- 
ernments, have  teemed  of  late  years  from  the  European  press,  and 
the  most  important  of  .these  (Rosellini  and  others)  now  embellish 
your  Library.  '-Sfa 

It  is  to  the  effective  r,  and  fostering  counsel  of  our  mutual 
friend,  Richard  RandI!  _,*Esq.,  of  Philadelphia,  and  y 
the  public  in  this  country  are  indebted,  for  whatever  o:  *bue  and 
novel  interest  may  be  found  in  this  unpretending  essay  ; and,  through 
these  marks  of  consideration  is  the  Author  enabled,  to  present  to  the 
American  people,  some  of  the  more  salient  points  of  recent  Hiero- 
glyphical  discoveries,  in  a form  corresponding  to  his  free-trade 
principles. 

Our  united  object  is  to  popularize  information,  that  may  tend  to  a 
better  appreciation  of  these  abstruse  subjects,  than  has  hitherto  been 
deemed  feasible ; as  well  as  to  induce  abler  hands  to  supply  defi- 
ciencies. 

These  Chapters  will,  it  is  believed,  serve  the  Theologian,  Ethno- 
logist, Historian,  and  general  reader,  as  a Key  to  the  successful  la- 
bors of  the  Champollionists  ; while  their  publication  and  general 
diffusion,  through  the  elaborate  machinery  of  the  “New  World” 
press,  will  enable  the  lecturer  to  spare  his  future  audiences  the  oral 
infliction  of  much  preliminary,  though  indispensable  matter,  by  re- 
moving the  prevalent  doubts — “if  Hieroglyphics  be  translated.” 

The  instruclion  and  kind  assistance  I have  received  from  the 
learned  ethnographer,  Samuel  George  Morton,  Esq.,  M.  D.,  of 
Philadelphia,  and  from  the  profound  philologist,  the  Hon  J >hn 
Pickering,  of  Boston,  have  been  severally  acknowledged.  To  Pro- 
fessor Charles  Anthon,  of  Columbia  College,  I am  under  great 
obligations,  for  much  classical  information,  and  for  free  access  to 
his  valuable  Library. 

As  the  matter,  spread  over  the  following  pages,  was  originally 
prepared  for  delivery  in  oral  Lectures,  it  has  required  some  labor  to 
change  it  into  its  present  form  ; and  for  suggestions  on  this  point, 
as  well  as  for  many  literary  essentials,  I owe  my  best  thanks  to  my 
friend,  E.  S.  Gould,  Esq.,  of  this  city. 

In  their  pristine  shape  of  Lectures,  they  were,  during  December 
and  January  last,  listened  to  with  much  indulgence,  by  an  intel- 
lectual and  cultivated  audience,  in  Boston,  and  spoken  of  with  favor 
by  the  Press  of  that  city. 

For  the  advantages  accruing  from  this  successful  “ ddbtit,”  I shall 
ever  preserve  a grateful  remembrance  toward  Joseph  W.  Ingraham, 
Esq.,  the  well  informed  Topographer  of  Palestine ; whose  disin. 
terested  cooperation  was  of  material  assistance  to  me. 

With  renewed  protestations  of  sincere  attachment, 

I remain,  dear  Sir, 

Your  obliged  and  obedient  Servant, 

GEORGE  R.  GLIDDON. 

“Globe  Hotel,”  (New  York,)  March  15,  1843. 


NOTE  TO  THE  PRESENT  EDITION. 

Augusta,  Georgia,  17 lh  December,  1847 

The  seven  “ Chapters,”  herein  contained,  originally  formed  part  of  a series  of  thirteen  oral  Lectures  on  “ Early  Egyptian  History,”  &c., 
delivered  by  the  Author  at  Boston,  from  December  1849,  to  February  1843.  They  were  subsequently  presented  to  the  American  Public, 
through  the  medium  of  the  “ New  World”  press  in  New  York,  and  have  since  passed  through  many  editions  of  several  thousand  each. 
The  objects  of  the  Author,  in  the  publication  of  the  Pamphlet,  being  set  forth  In  the  dedicatory  preface,  it  seems  merely  necessary  to 
observe,  that  he  has  no  pecuniary  interest  in  its  past  or  future  circulation.  Mr.  T.  B.  PETERSON,  having  become  proprietor  of  the 
Stereotype  Plates  by  purchase  from  the  “New  World,”  publish  the  present  edition,  wherein  many  typographical  corrections  have  been 
inade ; while  pages  45  and  46  have  been  recast,  in  order  to  embody  the  matured  results  of  Dr.  S.  G.  Morton’s  “ Crania  /EVyptrca,” 
Published  at  Philadelphia  in  March,  1844.  Grit.  G. 


3 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


A SERIES  OF  CHAPTERS  ON  EARLY  EGYPTIAN  HISTORY, 

&.C.  &.C.  &c.  , 


CHAPTER  FIRST. 


INTRODUCTORY. 

*'  Amicus  Socrates,  Amicus  Plato,  sed  magis  Arnica  Veritas.” 

The  great  Expedition,  that,  in  1798,  left  the  shores  of  France  for 
Egypt,  seemed,  under  the  guidance  of  the  mighty  genius  of  Napoleon, 
destined  to  create  an  Oriental  Empire,  wherein  the  children  of  the 
Frank  and  Gaul  would  have  sustained  a supremacy  over  the  North- 
western provinces  of  Asia  and  Africa,  equal  to  that  which  has  been 
established  in  the  Eastern  Hemisphere,  by  the  Anglo-Saxon  race. 
This  enterprise  was,  however,  fated  to  encounter  obstacles,  that,  in 
1800-1,  turned  the  energies  of  Buonaparte  into  an  European  channel. 

How  comprehensive,  nay  unbounded,  were  the  projects  of  the 
Commander-in-chief  for  Asiatic  and  African  conquest,  is  now  a mat- 
ter of  History  ; although,  after  the  lapse  of  forty  years,  it  can  scarcely 
yet  be  said,  that  we  are  acquainted  with  the  limit  of  his  matured 
schemes  in  regard  to  Oriental  subjugation,  nor  have  we  completely 
sounded  the  depths  of  his  penetration  into  Eastern  political  futurities. 
By  the  hand  of  inscrutable  Providence,  the  sword  of  another  Euro- 
pean nation  was  thrown  into  the  opposite  scale  ; and  the  French 
Expedition  to  Egypt  lives  but  in  the  memories  of  its  few  surviving 
actors — its  military  objects  unaccomplished — its  territorial  aggrand- 
izements unattained — though  the  moral  effect,  consequent  on  these 
events,  and  now  implanted  in  the  mintE/5  Eastern  Nations,  can 
never  be  obliterated.  .. 

In  the*^' : of  his  cabinet,  as  in  the  turmoil  of  political  conflict, 
Napoleon  never  forgot  the  cause  of  Science,  or  the  patronage  and  ad- 
vancement of  Literature  and  the  Arts;  and,  amid  the  roar  of  his 
artillery,  or  the  martial  music  of  his  camps,  his  mandate  prompted, 
and  his  eye  controlled  the  savans  of  France,  while  his  finger  directed 
their  laborious  efforts  to  the  scrutiny  of  Egypt  and  her  Monuments. 

The  grave  has  closed  over  the  Conqueror — the  events  of  his  period 
are  gradual' y receding  from  the  memory  of  man,  to  survive  on  the 
page  of  the  chronicler ; but  an  impetus  was  given  to  Egyptian  re- 
search by  Napoleon — an  impress  was  stamped  by  him  on  Hiero- 
giyphical  studies,  for  which  time  will  award  him  commensurate  honor. 

We  are  now  only  beginning  to  derive  a portion  of  the  advantages 
accruing,  from  these  events,  to  our  inquiries  into  Early  History. 
Ages  yet  slumbering  in  the  womb  of  time,  and  generations  yet  un- 
born will  perhaps  enjoy  the  full  effulgence  of  that  light,  of  which,  in 
our  day,  but  the  first  gleams  have  reached  the  world. 

The  circumambient  darkness,  that  for  two  thousand  years  not  only 
batlied  every  inquiry  into  primeval  history,  but  rendered  Egypt,  her 
time-worn  edifices,  her  ancient  inhabitants,  their  religion,  arts,  sci- 
ences, institutions,  learning,  language,  history,  conquests  and  domin- 
ion, almost  incomprehensible  mysteries,  has  now  been  broken;  and 
the  translation  of  the  sacred  Legends,  sculptured  on  monumental  ves- 
tiges of  Pharaonic  glory,  enables  us  now  to  define  and  to  explain, 
with  tolerable  accuracy,  these  once-recondite  annals,  that  were  to  the 
Romans  “ a stumbling-block,  and  unto  the  Greeks  foolishness.” 

It  is  the  object  of  the  present  essay  to  give  a summary  of  the  re- 
sults of  Ilieroglyphical  researches,  after  a brief  explanation  of  the 
process  by  which  these  results  have  been  achieved. 


Prior  to  the  year  1800,  the  published  notices  of  the  few  travellers, 
who  had  ventured  to  approach  the  ancient  ruins  of  Egypt,  were  so 
confused  in  description,  so  ambiguous  in  detail,  so  erroneous  in  at- 
tempts at  explaining  their  origin  and  design,  that  the  fact,  that  these 
monuments  merited  more  than  ordinary  investigation,  was  the  only 
point  on  which  European  savans  were  able  to  coincide.  Paul  Lucas, 
Shaw,  Volney,  Savary,  Norden,  Sonnini,  Pococke,  Clarke,  Maillet, 
Bruce  and  others,  whose  names  are  precious  to  the  i»vers  of  adven- 
ture, of  research  and  general  science,  had  explored  afl  much  as  their 
respective  circumstances  permitted;  and  great  are  the  merits  of  their 
works  : but  the  accumulation  of  knowledge,  gained  in  the  lapse  of 
half  a century,  has  so  thoroughly  revolutionized  opinion,  that  it  is 
scarcely  possible  to  refer  to  the  majority  of  these  authors  without  a 
smile.  That  victim  of  ignorance  and  slander,  the  enthusiastic  Bruce, 
is  perhaps  the  most  prominent  exception  to  the  above  rule  ; although 
only  now  receiving  the  mournful  tribute  of  respect  and  gratitude, 
with  which  a later  generation  hallows  his  memory,  while  it  repro- 
bates his  detractors. 

The  works  of  travellers,  before  the  year  1800,  had  done  little  be- 
yond establishing  the  existence  of  immense  vestiges  of  antiquity  in 
that  country,  without  affording  much  else  of  value  in  regard  to  them. 
Egypt,  under  the  turbulent  government  of  the  Memlooks,  was  unsafe 
to  strangers ; while  Muslim  arrogance  and  intolerancy,  with  the 
then-unsubdued  pride  of  Turkish  fanaticism,  presented  barriers  to 
European  explorers,  which  it  required  unusual  skill  and  intrepidity 
to  encounter.  Egypt  was  then  “ a sealed  book,”  whose  pages  could 
not  be  opened,  until  Napoleon’s  thunderbolts  had  riven  the  clasps 


asunder  ; and  until  the  chivalrous  cavalry'  of  the  “ Ghuz  ”*  had  been 
scattered,  like  chaff  before  the  wind,  by  the  concentrated  vollevs  of 
a French  hollow  square — their  hitherto  victorious  sabres  shivering  on 
contact  with  the  European  bayonet. 

While  however,  in  spite  of  these  manifold  obstacles,  the  travelling 
enthusiast,  or  the  scientific  explorer,  collected  in  the  talley  of  the 
Nile  the  information,  which  afforded  to  the  scholar  in  Europe  some 
crude  and  uncertain  materials  wherewith  to  prosecute  his  researches; 
the  occasional  transmission  to  European  cabinets  of  some  relics  of 
Egyptian  civilization,  furnished  evidences  of  the  immense  progress, 
which,  at  an  ancient,  but  then  undefined,  period,  had  been  made  in 
all  arts  and  sciences  by  the  Egyptians.  With  the  aid  of  such  cor- 
roborations of  the  misshapen  mass  of  classical  knowledge,  expended, 
from  the  days  of  Homer,  in  an  attempted  explanation  of  Egyptian 
Archteology,  the  attention  of  the  most  learned  of  all  nations  was  di- 
rected to  the  Antiquities  of  Egypt;  and,  although  in  Europe  these 
particular  inquiries  recommenced  probably  about  three  hundred  years 
ago  ; yet  the  18th  century  was  fruitful,  beyond  all  preceding  periods, 
in  ponderous  tomes,  purporting  more  or  less  to  cast  some  light  on 
the  important,  but  conflicting  traefitions  of  that  country. 

The  Greek,  the  Hebrew,  the  Roman,  the  Armenian,  the  Indian, 
and  the  Coptic  authorities  were  consulted.  Passages,  in  themselves 
irreconcileable,  were  with  more  ingenuity  than  success  collated,  ana- 
lyzed, and  mutually  adjusted  : but  rather  to  the  personal  satisfaction 
of  the  compiler,  than  to  the  correct  elucidation  of  any  one  given 
idea  on  Ancient  Egypt,  transmitted  to  us  by  these  classical  writers. 

Still,  the  spirit  of  inquiry  was  awakened ; the  lamp  of  investigation 
was  partially  lighted  ; the  learned  world  became  gradually  more  and 
more  familiarized  with  the  subject;  and,  at  the  present  hour,  if  we 
laugh  at  the  conclusions  at  which  some  of  these  students  arrived,  we 
must  still  render  to  them  full  credit  for  the  profundity  of  their  futile 
investigations,  and  admire  the  patient  perseverance  and  resolution 
wfith  which  they  grappled  with  mysteries,  the  solution  whereof  was 
to  them  as  hopeless  in  expectation,  as  abortive  in  success. 

Vain  would  it  be,  without  ransacking  the  libraries  of  every  civi- 
lized country,  and  selecting  from  their  dusty  shelves  the  vast  accu- 
mulation of  works,  published  by  the  learned  and  the  unlearned  during 
the  last  three  centuries,  to  attempt  a detailed  specification  of  the  ex- 
traordinary aberrations  of  human  intellect ; those  manifold  and 
incomprehensible  misconceptions  on  Ancient  Egypt ; that,  at  the 
present  hour,  excite  our  surprise  and  our  regret.  The  mere  mechan- 
ical labor  of  such  an  undertaking  would  be  more  tedious  than  any 
literary  enterprise  we  can  w-ell  conceive  ; while  its  result  would  be 
unprofitable,  beyond  the  moral  it  would  teach.  In  the  present  Chap- 
ters, a very  few  of  such  sapient  illusions  are  enumerated  ; affording, 
however,  but  a faint  idea  of  their  huge  amount:  and  it  may  be  laid 
down  as  a rule,  without  exception  prior  to  the  year  1790,  that  no  ori- 
ginal light  is  to  be  obtained  from  European  authors  of  the  last  gener- 
ation, whose  works  are  merely  repetitions  of  the  few  truths  and  the 
many  fallacies  transmitted  to  us  by  Greco-Roman  antiquity.  The 
following  paragraphs  will  give  a general  view  of  the  case. 

In  the  year  1636,  a learned  Jesuit,  the  celebrated  Father  Kircher.t 
published  a mighty  work,  in  six  ponderous  folios,  entitled  “ (Edipus 
zEgyptiacus,”  wherein  imagination  took  the  place  of  common  sense, 
and  fantastic  conjecture  was  substituted  for  fact.  Kircher  explained 
every  Egyptian  Hieroglyphic  by  the  application  of  a sublimity  of 
mysticism,  from  which  to  the  ridiculous  the  transition  is  immediate. 
Dark  and  impenetrable  as  had  been  the  “ Isiac  Veil,”  before  Kir- 
cher directed  his  gigantic  efforts  to  its  removal,  we  do  him  but  justice 
in  declaring,  that  he  succeeded  in  enveloping  Egyptian  studies  with 
an  increased  density  of  gloom,  it  has  taken  nearly  two  hundred  years 
to  dissipate  1 Kircher  had  his  disciples,  his  followers  and  his  ad- 
mirers— he  founded  a school  of  mysticism,  in  which  the  students  out- 
vied their  master  in  love  of  the  incomprehensible;  and,  abandoning 
the  simplest  elements  of  reason  and  sound  criticism,  they  all  pre- 
tended to  discover,  or  to  have  the  hope  of  finding,  in  the  Papyri, 
Obelisks,  Idols,  Mummy  Gases,  Weapons,  household  utensils,  &c.  of 
the  Ancient  Egyptians,  all  the  recondite  combinations  of  cabalistic 
science,  and  the  monstrous  reveries  “of  a demonomania  the  most 
refined.”  As  an  instance  : 

The  Pamphilian  Obelisk,  reerected,  in  1651,  in  the  Piazza  Navona 
at  Rome  by  Pope  Innocent  the  10th,  was  brought  to  Europe  by  the 
Roman  Emperors.  It  contains,  among  other  subjects,  the  following 
oval. 


f Phonetic 
Hiero- 
glyphics.) 


U T o K 


(Latin  pro- 

R A T O R nunciation.) 


EMPEROR. 


(English 

meaning.) 


This  Cartouche,  according  to  Kircher’s  interpretation  expressed 
emblematically,  “ the  author  of  fecundity  and  of  all  vegetation,  is 
Osiris,  of  which  the  generative  faculty  is  drawn  from  heaven  into 


* Arabice— Memlooks. 


t See  Champ.  Precis,  and  Spineto’s  Lectures. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


3 


his  kingdom,  by  the  Saint  Moptha.”  And  who  is  this  Saint  Mop- 
tka?  An  Egyptian  genius  invented  by  Kircher  himself! 


The  same  obelisk  contains  the  following  oval  also — viz. 


-REDUCTION- 


vM 
% 


K A iSaRoS  ToM  I T1AN0S  SeBa  S ToS 
CAESAR  DOMITIAN  AUGUSTUS. 


Kircher  translates  it— “ The  beneficent  Being,  who  presides  over 
generation,  who  enjoys  heavenly  dominion,  and  fourfold  power,  com- 
mits  the  atmosphere,  by  means  of  Moptha,  the  beneficent  (principle 
of?)  atmospheric  humidity  unto  Ammon,  most  powerful  over  the 
lower  parts  (of  the  world,)  who,  by  means  of  an  image  and  appro- 
priate ceremonies,  is  drawn  to  the  exercising  of  his  power.  (•) 

The  Pamphilian  obelisk  contains  in  its  legends  “ Son  of  the  Sun, 
Lord  of  the  Diadems  (i.  e.  Ruler  of  Rulers)  Autocrator  Caesar  Domi- 
tian  Augustus”— besides  the  usual  titles  found  on  Egyptian  Obelisks. 
These  monuments  are  granite  monoliths,  cut  by  order  of  the  kings 
of  Egypt ; and  were  placed,  always  in  pairs,  before  the  entrances  of 
temples  or  palaces,  to  record  that  such  kings  had  built,  increased  in 
extent,  repaired,  or  otherwise  embellished  these  edifices.  This  was, 
however,  cut  at  Syene,  in  Roman  times,  in  honor  of  Domitian. 

According  even  to  a more  recent  authority,  quoted  in  the  Precis, 
of  the  year  1821  (!)  “ Genoa- Arch ipiscopal  press,”  this  identical 
obelisk  “ preserves  the  record  of  the  triumph  over  the  Impious,  ob- 
tained by  the  adorers  of  the  most  Holy  Trinity,  and  of  the  Eternal 
Word,  under  the  government  of  the  6th  and  7th  kings  of  Egypt,  in 
the  6th  century  after  the  deluge.” 

This  obelisk  was  cut  in  Egypt  about  eighty  years  after  Christ. 
By  the  above  interpretation , the  doctrines  of  Christianity  must  have 
existed  some  25U0  years  before  its  founder.  And  one  of  the  pious 
adorers  and  good  Christians,  who  must  thus  have  ruled  in  Egypt, 
was,  in  later  times,  (about  970  B.  C.)  Shishak — or  Sheshonk,  who, 
according  to  hieroglyphical  legends  at  Karnac,  conquered  the  “ king- 
dom of  Judah;”  and,  according  to  2nd  Chron.  XII,  1st  to  10th  ver- 
ses, and  1st  Kings,  XIV.  25th,  deposed  Rehoboam,  plundered  Jerusa- 
lem, desecrated  the  Temple,  and  removed  the  golden  bucklers  from  the 
sanctuary  with  the  treasures  of  the  house  of  David  ! 

Again,  in  1812,  the  learned  mystagogue,  Chevalier  de  Palin, 
boldly  undertook  the  deciphering  of  all  Egyptian  hieroglyphics,  and 
asserts  to  the  effect,  that  we  have  only  to  translate  the  Psalms  of  Da- 
vid into  Chinese,  and  transpose  them  into  the  ancient  characters  of 
that  language,  to  reproduce  the  Egyptian  papyri ! that  Hebrew 
translations  of  some  Egyptian  records  are  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  (!) 
and,  while  the  portico  of  the  temple  of  Dendera  contains,  among 
various  subjects,  dedications  of  the  Roman  Emperors,  T.  iberius,  Cali- 
gula, Claudius  and  Nero  (dating  between  the  years  14  and  60  after 
Christ,)  another  theorist,  Count  Caylus,  combining  what  he  terms  the 
“ Symbols  of  Nations”  in  Africa,  Asia,  Europe,  and  America,  ap- 
plied his  results  to  this  unfortunate  temple  ; asserting,  that  the  hiero- 
glyphics thereon  contain  merely  a “ translation  of  the  100th  Psalm 
of  David,  composed  to  invite  the  people  to  enter  into  the  temple  of 
God.” 

Others  have  maintained,  that  the  hieroglyphic  legends,  sculptured 
and  painted  on  every  temple  of  Egypt,  in  all  the  tombs  of  her  people, 
and  on  almost  every  article  that  now  embellishes  the  museums  of 
Europe,  are  nothing  more  or  less  than  Hebrew — that  the  pyramids 
were  built  by  Moses  and  Aaron  ;*  while  another  scholar,  the  Abbd 
Tandeau,  in  1762,  maintained,  that  hieroglyphics  were  mere  arbi- 
trary signs,  only  employed  to  serve  as  ornaments  to  the  edifices  on 
which  they  are  engraved,  and  that  they  were  never  invented  to  pic- 
ture ideas. 

Yet  these  illusions  were  not  unproductive  of  some  advantages. 
Some  faint  glimmers  were  thrown  on  certain  points  of  history ; and 
Kircher’s  voluminous  collection  of  passages  regarding  Egypt  from 
Greek  and  Roman  authors,  writh  the  attention  excited,  through  his 
researches  into  the  Coptic  tongue  (of  which  language  numbers  of 
manuscripts  have  since  been  drawn  from  obscurity,)  has  led  to  most 
important  results.  The  vast  erudition  of  Jablonsky  came  in  aid  of 
the  same  object;  and  his  “Pantheon  ASgyptiorum”  has  spared 
many  of  his  successors  a great  deal  of  trouble. 

It  may,  however,  be  maintained,  that  the  first  real  step  made  into 
hieroglyphical  arcana,  is  to  be  dated  from  1797,  when  the  learned 
Dane,  George  Zoega,  published  at  Rome  his  folio,  “ De  Origine  et 
Usu  Obeliscorum,”  explanatory  of  the  Egyptian  obelisks.  It  was 
the  first  time,  that  learning  and  practical  common  sense  had  been 
utiited  in  Egyptian  researches ; and  likewise  the  first  time,  that  an 


attempt  had  been  made  to  give  facsimile  copies  of  hieroglyphica 
texts.  George  Zoega  was  the  first  who  suggested,  that  the  elliptica 
ovals  (now  termed  “Cartouches,”)  containing  groups  of  then-un 
known  characters,  were  probably  proper  names;  although  he  wa. 
not  aware,  that  (with  the  exception  of  a few  instances,  wherein  they 
contain  the  names  of  Deities)  they  exclusively  inclose  the  titles  Ol 
names  of  Pharaohs.  A similar  idea  was  maintained,  I believe,  b) 
the  Abbe  Barthelemy ; but  a quarter  of  a century  elapsed,  before 
this  fundamental  principle  of  hieroglyphic  writing  was  determined 
To  George  Zoega  also  belongs  the  merit  of  employing  the  terra 
phonetic  (from  the  Greek  tfroerr  meaning  “expressive  of  sound;”) 
and  the  conjecture,  tW>9ome  of  the  figures  of  animals,  &c.,  found 
in  the  legends  of  Egypsf  piust  represent  sounds,  and  we»ipossibly 
letters. 

By  such,  and  similar  extremely  partial  results,  so  wearied  had  the 
learned  become  with  speculations  devoid  of  probability,  and  theoret- 
ical systems  unsupported  by  reason,  that  Egyptian  studies  were,  by 
the  mass,  considered  as  unsatisfactory  as  astrology — the  hope  of  ever 
unravelling  the  legends  of  the  Nilotic  Valley,  was  looked  upon  to  bo 
as  illusory  as  the  expectations  of  the  alchemist. 

The  real  progress  in  Egyptian  studies  dates  from  the  appearance 
of  the  great  French  work,  better  known  as  the  “ Description 
de  l’Egypte ;”  compiled  at  the  expense  of  the  French  government, 
after  the  return  to  France  of  Napoleon’s  expedition,  by  the  enthuei 
astic  and  laborious  savans  who  had  accompanied  it.  This  truly 
great  work  presented,  for  the  first  time,  faithful  architectural  copies 
of  the  monuments  of  Egypt  to  the  student : and  if  experience  has 
since  shown  that  the  French  artists,  of  that  day,  were  not  scrupu- 
lously exact  in  delineating  the  hieroglyphical  legends  sculptured  on 
the  edifices,  of  which  they  gave  measurements  and  descriptions  in 
other  respects  correct,  still  a mass  of  facsimiles  was  thus  furnished  to 
the  decipherer,  and  an  immense  step  was  effected  in  general  Egyp- 
tian knowledge. 

The  museums  of  Europe,  in  the  mean  time,  were  continually  re- 
ceiving additions  of  antiquarian  relics  from  the  shores  of  the  Nile. 
The  “ A2gyptiaca”  of  the  learned  Hamilton  threw,  with  the  prece- 
ding antiquities,  a flood  of  light  upon  the  “ darkness”  of  Egypt,  as 
known  to  Europeans  in  the  first  years  of  the  19th  century  : while  the 
return  of  the  victors  at  Abookeer  and  Alexandria,  spread  through- 
out Europe,  a clearer  conception  of  Egypt,  as  a country,  than  had 
previously  been  entertained. 

Other  works,  like  that  of  Denon,  kept  up  the  revived  interest ; 
until  Belzoni’s  discoveries  of  entrances  to  divers  pyramids  at  Mem- 
phis, and  of  the  tomb  celebrated  by  his  name  at  Thebes  (now  known 
as  that  of  “ Osirei-Menephtha,”  B.  C.  1580  ;)  and  Cailleaud’s  account 
of  the  pyramids,  &. c.  in  Ethiopia,  joined  to  the  continued  transfer  to 
European  cabinets  of  vast  collections  of  Egyptian  Antiquities,  fur- 
nished to  scholars  the  materials  whereon  to  prosecute  their  investi- 
gations. In  1808,  the  learned  work  of  Quatrem6re,  Recherches,  & c., 
demonstrated,  that  “ the  Coptic  tongue  was  identical  with  the  Egyp- 
tian” language,  handed  down  from  mouth  to  mouth,  and  graphically 
in  Greek  characters,  with  the  addition  of  seven  signs  taken,  as  sub- 
sequently shown,  from  the  enchorial  writings.  The  Coptic,  as 
known  to  us,  came  into  use  with  Christianity,  and  ceased  to  be  orally 
preserved  about  a hundred  years  ago  ; though,  as  a dead  language, 
it  is  still  used  in  the  Coptic  Christian  liturgies  in  Egypt.  The  mul- 
titude of  Greek  and  Latin  inscriptions,  existing  in  edifices  along  the 
Nile,  with  Greek,  and  a few  bilinguar  fragments  and  papyri,  col- 
lected in  various  countries,  enabled  the  classical  Greek  antiquary, 
Mons.  Letronne,  to  bring  before  the  world  his  invaluable  “Researches 
to  aid  the  History  of  Egypt,”  and  thus  elucidate  many  curious  points 
of  Roman  and  Ptolemaic  periods ; while  Champollion’s  “ Egypt  under 
the  Pharaohs,”  in  1814,  announced  the  appearance  of  another  com- 
petitor on  the  stage  of  Egyptian  archaeology,  whom  Providence  seems 
to  have  created  the  especial  instrument  for  resuscitating  the  long 
lost  annals  of  Egypt.  With  these  laborers  may  be  classed  (although 
their  travels  took  place,  and  their  works  appeared  some  years  after) 
the  ingenious  Gau,  who  explored  Lower  Nubia,  and  tho  Baron  Mi. 
nutoli,  whoi  visited  Egypt,  and  the  templed  sanetuary  ol  Jupitei 
Amon,  in  the  Oasis  of  Seewah, 


*See  Calmet’s  Dictionary,  1.  «. 


4 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


Such  was  the  extent  ot'  modern  inquiry  into  early  Egyptian  his- 
tory, about  the  year  1820,  as  known  to  the  general  reader  : but  for- 
tuitous circumstances,  consequent  upon  the  French  expedition,  had 
combined  to  supply  not  only  the  key  to  all  the  hitherto  impenetrable 
mysteries  of  Egypt,  but  the  mind  to  comprehend-  the  30ul  to  master, 
and  the  hand  to  execute  more,  in  ten  short  yotyfj,  than  all  mankind 
had  even  dreamed  of,  much  less  been  able  in  twenty  centuries  to 
achieve.  I allude,  of  course,  to  Champoj-lion  le  Jeune. 

Bv  the  1 6th  article  of  the  capitulation  of  Alexandria, all  the  objects 
collected  by  the  French  Institute  of  Egypt,  and  other  members  of 
the  expedition,  were  to  be  delivered  up  to  the  British.  After  some 
discussion,  Lord  Hutchinson  gave  up  all  claim  to  objects  of  Natural 
History,  but  insisted  on  the  complete  fulfilment  of  the  16th  article, 
ns  to  all  other  things.  A vast  amount  of  precious  sculptures  thus 
became  the  prize  of  the  conquerors,  and  was  conveyed  in  due  course 
vo  the  British  Museum  in  London;  and  among  others  the  celebrated 
Rosetta  Stone. 

I am  indebted  for  the  facsimile  copy  of  this  invaluable  monu- 
mem,  in  my  possession,  to  the  kindness  of  the  Hon.  John  Pickekino, 
of  Boston,  whose  profound  philological  researches  are  justly  cele- 
brated, while  they  have  induced  him  to  keep  pace  with  Champol- 
lion’s  discoveries  in  ancient  Egyptian  literature.  My  friend,  Dr. 
T.  H.  Vfebb,  likewise  of  Boston,  possesses  a beautiful  plaster  cast 
ot  the  original  slnne ; and  as  I am  on  this  point,  I would  observe, 
that  the  boat  critical  examination  of  the  hieroglyphic  portion  of  the 
Rosetta  Stone,  published  up  to  1841,  may  be  seen  in  Salvolini’s 
“Analysis  of  various  Hieroglyphical  Texts,”  issued  at  Paris,  some 
six  years  ago.  Prufessor  Rosellini  hints  that  his  analysis  of  this  Text 
will  be  a consequence  of  his  work. 

To  give  an  idea  of  the  Rosetta  Stone,  I annex  the  following 


The  dotted  line  at  the  top  shows  what  was  probably  its  original 
tabular  form,  when  it  was  placed  in  the  temple. 

This  inestimable  fragment  (the  Rosetta  Stone)  consists  in  a block 
of  black  basalt,  which  was  discovered  by  a French  officer  of  engi- 
neers, Mons.  Bouchard,  in  August  1799,  when  digging  the  founda- 
tions of  Fort  St.  Julien,  erected  on  the  western  bank  of  the  Nile, 
between  Rosetta  and  the  sea,  not  far  from  the  mouth  of  the  river. 
It  was  placed  by  the  British  commander-in-chief,  on  board  the  frigate 
“ Egvptienne,”  captured  in  the  harbor  of  Alexandria,  and  arrived  at 
Portsmouth  in  February,  1802,  whence  it  was  deposited  in  the  Brit- 
ish Museum. 

In  its  present  state  it  is  much  mutilated,  chiefly  on  the  top,  and  at 
the  right  side.  Its  extreme  length  is  about  three  feet,  measured  on 
the  flat  surface,  which  contains  the  writing ; its  breadth,  which  in 
some  parts  is  entire  is  about  two  feet  five  inches.  The  under  part 


of  the  stone,  which  is  not  sculptured,  is  left  rough.  In  thickness,  it 
varies  from -ten.  to  twelve  inches.  It  bears  three  inscriptions,  and  is 
bilingual- — two  of  them  being  in  ihe  Egyptian  language,  though  in 
separate  and  distinct  characters,  the  third  is  in  Ancient  Greek.  The 
first  or  uppermost  inscription  is  in  hieroglyphics,  and  much  muti- 
lated— several  lines  being  impaired  or  wanting — the  second  is  the 
character,  styled  in  the  Greek  translation  enchorial,  “ writing  of  the 
people,”  or  otherwise  it  is  termed  demotic,  to  designate  its  ordinary 
and  popular  use — the  third  is  in  Greek,  and  purports  to  be  a transla- 
tion of  the  hieroglyphic  and  of  the  demotic  texts. 

The  English  translations  of  the  Rosetta  stone,  contained  in  the 
works  enumerated  in  my  first  chapter,  not  being  at  present  accessible 
to  me,  I render  into  English  the  French  of  Champollion  Figeac.  It 
is  curtailed,  in  some  measure,  from  the  original  Greek  inscription  ; 
wherein  there  is  a long  exordium  in  honor  of  Ptolemy  Epiphanes,  to 
be  seen  in  “ Ameilhon’s  Eclaircissements,”  published  by  the  French 
Institute  in  1803.  The  general  reader  will  find  much  interesting  in- 
formation on  this  and  other  subjects,  in  “Sharpe’s  Inscriptions” 
“ British  Museum  as  likewise  in  the  varied  hierological  and  clas- 
sical works  of  this  distinguished  gentleman.  The  event  recorded  in 
the  Rosetta  Stone,  the  coronation  of  Epiphanes,  took  place  at  Mem. 
phis,  in  the  month  of  March,  196  years  B.  C.,  or  2039  years  ago. 


TRANSLATION. 

“ The  year  IX,  (of  the  reign  of  the  “ Son  of  the  Sun,  Ptolemy,  ever  living, 
beloved  oj  Pthah”)  the  tenth  of  the  month  of  Mechib,  the  pontiffs  and  the 
prophets,  those  who  enter  into  the  sanctuary  to  clothe  the  gods,  the  ptern- 
phores,  the  hierogrammates,  and  all  the  other  priests,  who  from  all  the  tem- 
ples situated  in  the  country,  have  come  to  Memphis,  near  the  King,  for  the 
solemnity  of  the  taking  possession  of  that  crown,  which  Ptolemy,  ever  living, 
the  well  beloved  of  Pthah,  god  Epiphanes  most  gracious  prince,  has  inher- 
ited from  his  father,  being  assembled  in  the  temple  of  Memphis,  have  pro- 
nounced, this  same  day,  the  following  decree  : 

“ Considering,  that  the  King  Ptolemy,  ever  living,  the  well  beloved  of 
Pthah,  god  Epiphanes,  most  gracious,  son  of  the  King  Ptolemy,  and  of  the 
Queen  Arsinoe,  gods  philopatores  (father-loving)  has  done  all  kinds  of  good, 
both  to  the  temples,  and  to  those  who  therein  make  their  habitation;  and, 
in  general,  to  all  those  who  are  under  his  dominion;  that  being  (himself)  a 
god,  born  of  a god  and  a goddess,  like  Horus,  the  son  of  Isis  and  Osiris, 
the  avenger  of  Osiris  his  father;  and  ambitious  of  signalizing  generously  his 
zeal  for  the  things  which  concern  the  gods,  he  has  consecrated  to  the  service 
of  the  temples,  great  revenues,  as  well  of  money  as  of  wheal,  and  has  been 
at  great  expenses  to  restore  tranquillity  in  Egypt,  and  to  raise  temples. 

“ That  he  has  not  neglected  any  of  the  means  that  were  within  his  power, 
to  perform  acts  of  humanity;  that  in  order  that  in  his  kingdom  the  people, 
and  in  general  all  the  citizens,  should  be  in  prosperity,  he  has  suppressed 
altogether  some  of  the  taxes  and  imposts  established  in  Egypt,  and  has 
diminished  the  onus  of  the  others  ; that,  moreover,  he  has  remitted  all  that 
was  due  to  him  on  the  royal  rents,  as  much  by  his  subjects,  inhabitants  of 
Egypt,  as  by  those  of  his  other  kingdoms;  although  these  rents  were  very 
considerable  in  their  amount;  that  he  has  liberated  by  amnesty,  those  who 
were  imprisoned,  and  under  sentence  from  a long  time  ; 

“ That  he  has  ordained,  that  the  revenues  of  the  temples,  and  the  rents 
payable  to  them  every  year,  as  much  in  wheat  as  in  money,  as  also  those 
perquisitions  reserved  to  the  gods  on  the  vineyards,  the  orchards,  and  on  the 
other  things,  to  which  they  were  entitled  from  the  time  of  his  father,  should 
continue  to  be  collected  in  the  country. 

“That  he  has  dispensed  those,  who  belong  to  the  sacerdotal  orders,  from 
making  every  year  a voyage  by  water  to  Alexandria. 

“ That  he  has  ordered,  that  the  citizens  who  had  laid  down  their  rebellious 
arms,  and  those  whose  sentiments  had  been,  in  the  limes  of  trouble,  opposed 
to  the  government,  and  who  had  returned  to  their  duty,  should  be  maintained 
in  possession  of  their  property. 

“That having  entered  Memphis,  as  the  avenger  of  his  father,  and  of  his 
own  rightful  crown,  he  has  punished,  as  they  deserved,  the  chiefs  of  those 
who  had  revolted  against  his  father,  and  devastated  the  country,  and  de- 
spoiled the  temples. 

“ That  he  has  made  many  gifts  to  Apis,  to  Mnevis,  and  to  the  other  sacred 
animals  of  Egypt. 

“ That  he  has  caused  to  be  made  magnificent  works  to  the  temple  of  Apis, 
and  has  furnished,  for  these  labors,  a large  quantity  of  gold,  and  silver,  and 
precious  stones;  that  he  has  raised  temples,  and  chapels,  and  altars;  and 
that  he  has  made  the  necessary  repairs  to  those  which  required  them,  hav- 
ing the  zeal  of  a beneficent  god  for  all  that  concerns  the  divinity  ; that, 
having  informed  himself  of  the  state  in  which  were  found  the  most  precious 
things  inclosed  in  the  temples,  he  has  renewed  them  in  his  empire,  as  much 
as  it  was  necessary — in  recompense  for  which,  the  gods  have  given  him 
health,  victory,  and  other  goods  ; . . . .the  crown  having  to  remain  to  him, 
as  well  as  to  his  children,  down  to  the  most  remote  posterity. 

“It  has  therefore  pleased  tlio  oriests  of  all  the  temples  of  the  land  to  de- 
cree, that  all  the  honors  belonging  to  the  King  Ptolemy,  ever  living,  the  well- 
beloved  of  Pthah,  god  Epiphanes,  most  gracious,  as  well  as  those  which  are 
due  to  his  father  and  mother,  the  gods  philopatores ; and  those  which  are 
due  to  his  ancestors,  should  be  considerably  augmented  ; that  the  statue  of 
King  Ptolemy,  ever  living,  be  erected  in  each  temple,  and  placed  in  the  most 
conspicuous  spot,  which  shall  be  called  the  Statue  of  Ptolemy,  avenger  of 
Egypt;  near  this  statue  shall  be  placed  the  principal  god  of  the  temple,  who 
will  present  him  with  the  arms  of  victory  ; and  everything  shall  be  disposed 
in  the  manner  most  appropriate.  That  the  priests  shall  perform,  three  times 
a day,  religious  service  to  these  statues  ; that  they  shall  adorn  them  with  sa- 
cred ornaments ; and  that  they  shall  have  care  to  render  them,  in  the  great 
solemnities,  all  the  honors  which,  according  to  usage,  ought  to  be  paid  to  the 
other  deities ; that  there  be  consecrated  to  King  Ptolemy  a statue,  and  a 
chapel,  gilded,  in  the  most  holy  of  the  temples;  that  this  chapel  be  placed  in 
the  sanctuary,  with  all  the  others;  and  that, in  the  great  solemnities,  wherein 
it  is  customary  to  bring  out  the  chapels  from  the  sanctuaries,  there  shall  be 
brought  out  that  of  the  god  Epiphanes,  most  gracious  ; and  that  this  chapel 
may  be  better  distinguished  from  the  others,  now  and  in  the  lapse  of  time 
hereafter,  there  shall  be  placed  above  it  the  ten  golden  crowns  of  the  king, 
which  shall  bear  on  their  anterior  part  an  asp,  in  imitation  of  tjjose  crowns 
of  aspic  form,  which  are  in  the  other  chapels;  and  in  the  middle  of  these 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


5 


crowns,  shall  be  placed  the  royal  ornament  termed  pshent,  that  one  which 
the  kin;;  wore.when  he  entered  the  Memphis,  in  the  temple,  in  order  to  ob- 
serve the  legal  ceremonies  prescribed  for  the  coronation  ; that  there  be  at- 
tached to  the  tetragon  (the  cornice?  or  perhaps  cover/)  encircling  the  ten 
crowns  affixed  to  the  chapel  above  named,  phylacteres  of  gold  (similar  to  the 
Hebrew  “taphilint” — amulets)  with  this  inscription  : “This  is  the  chapel 
of  the  King;  of  that  king  who  has  rendered  illustrious  the  upper  and  the  lower 
region;”  that  there  be  celebrated  a festival;  and  a great  assembly  (pane- 
gyrie)  be  held  in  honor  of  the  ever  living,  of  the  well  beloved  of  Pthah,  of  the 
King  Ptolemy,  god  Epiphanes  most  gracious,  every  year ; this  festival  shall 
take  place  in  all  the  provinces,  as  well  in  Upper,  as  in  Lower  Egypt ; and 
shall  last  for  five  days,  to  commence  on  the  first  day  of  the  month  of  Thoth  ; 
during  which,  those  who  make  the  sactifices,  the  libations,  and  all  the  other 
customary  ceremonies,  shall  wear  crowns;  they  shall  be  called  the  priests 
of  the  god  Epiphanes — Eucliarislos  (most  gracious)  and  they  shall  add  this 
name  to  the  others,  that  they  borrow  from  the  deities  to  the  service  of  whom 
they  are  already  consecrated.  , 

“And  in  order  that  it  may  be  known  why,  in  Egypt,  he  is  glorified  and 
honored,  as  is  just,  the  god  Epiphanes,  most  gracious  sovereign,  the  present 
decree  shall  he  engraved  on  a stela  of  hard  stone , in  sacked  characters,  ( i.  e. 
in  hieroglyphics)  in  writing  of  the  country  (i.  e.  in  enchorial,  or  demo- 
tic) and  in  Greek  letters  : and  this  stela  shall  be  placed  in  „ach  of  the 
temples  of  the  first,  second,  and  third  class  existing  in  all  the  kingdom.” 

Note  — The  Rosetta  stone  is  the  only  one  of  these  numerous  tablets,  that 
has  yet  been  found  ; but  it  is  by  no  means  impossible,  that  another  copy  be 
discovered  among  the  excavations  that  will  be  made  in  the  temples  of  Egypt. 

The  importance  of  this  stone  and  its  inscriptions,  indicating  the 
probability  of  its  supplying  a Key  to  the  deciphering  of  the  long 
lost  meanings  of  Egyptian  hieroglyphics,  was  immediately  per- 
ceived. The  French  general,  Dugua,  brought  from  Egypt  to  Paris, 
a cast  and  two  impressions  of  the  stone,  made  at  Cairo  ; and  in 
1803,  an  analysis  of  the  Greek  inscription,  made  by  citizen  Ameil- 
hon,  was  published  by  order  of  the  Institute.  Copies  of  the  stone 
were  subsequently  given  in  the  “ Description  de  1’  Egypte.”  The 
Royal  Antiquarian  Society  of  London,  on  receipt  of  the  original, 
caused  copies  to  be  engraved,  and  disseminated  throughout  Europe. 

The  Rosetta  Stone  excited  the  liveliest  interest  in  all  those  who 
had  devoted  themselves  to  Egyptian  Archaeology ; and  the  attention 
of  the  greatest  scholars  of  the  age  was  directed  to  its  critical  invest- 
igation. 

The  Greek  inscription  engaged  the  scrutiny  of  Professor  Porson, 
in  London  ; and  of  Dr.  Ileyne,  in  Germany.  By  their  critical  labors, 
nnd  those  of  the  French  Institute,  the  blanks  occasioned  by  frac- 
tures in  the  stone  were  supplied,  and  the  purport  of  the  whole  was 
completely  and  satisfactorily  ascertained. 

With  equal  zeal,  and  in  the  end,  with  astonishing  success,  the 
Continental  scholars  were  examining  the  meaning  of  the  other  two 
inscriptions.  They  demonstrated  that  the  Greek  was  really  a trans- 
lation ; and  consequently,  that  the  opinion  of  the  ancients,  no  less 
than  that  of  the  moderns,  was  erroneous,  in  supposing  that  the  hie- 
roglyphic and  other  Egyptian  characters  had  ceased  to  be  em- 
ployed, and  their  interpretation  lost,  since  the  Persian  conquest  of 
that  country  by  Cantbyses,  in  525  B.C. ; while  Quatremere,  by 
other  processes,  had  established  the  present  Coptic  language  to  be 
the  ancient  Egyptian  itself.  The  attention,  however,  of  these 
learned  inquirers,  seems  to  have  been  mainly  directed  to  the  study 
of  the  second,  or  intermedial  inscription — tok  re  Icpois,  sat  cy%wptois, 
cat  iXXtjvtsois  yyappanv — called  in  the  Greek  text,  “ enchorial,  or, 
writing  of  the  people  ; ” also,  as  above  stated,  termed  demotic  ; for 
the  simple  reason,  that  while  it  was  the  best  preserved,  at  first  sight 
it  appeared  to  be  the  easiest  to  decipher.  Time,  however,  has  shown 
it  to  be  the  most  difficult. 

The  greatest  Orientalist  of  the  day,  and  most  proficient  European 
Arabic  scholar,  the  lamented  Silvestre  de  Sacy,  was,  in  1802,  the 
first  to  discover  in  the  demotic  text,  the  groups  which  represent  dif- 
ferent proper  names;  such  as  Ptolemy,  Arsinoe,  Alexander,  and  Alex, 
andria — as  well  as  to  indicate  that  the  signs  in  these  groups  are 
letters. 

A Swedish  gentleman  resident  at  Rome,  Akerblnd,  extended  the 
researches  of  De  Sacy.  He  gave  a skeleton  alphabet  of  the  de- 
motic text ; but,  inasmuch  as  he  omitted  to  observe  the  suppression 
of  the  vowels,  (as  customary  in  Hebrew,  Arabic,  and  other  oriental 
languages,)  he  failed  in  applying  this  alphabet  to  the  greater  portion 
of  the  demotic  inscription.  Yet  a great  progress  had  been  made  ; 
and  to  Akerblad  belongs  the  merit  of  indicating  a passage  in  the 
hieroglyphic  character,  which  subsequent  discoveries  have  con- 
firmed. The  Key  to  Egyptian  monumental  legends  seemed,  how- 
ever, to  be  as  fugacious  as  ever ; and  years  were  spent  in  the  dis- 
covery of  a single  additional  letter,  notwithstanding  the  intensity  of 
the  interest,  and  the  laborious  zealousness  of  the  students. 

Under  the  title  of  “ Analysis  of  the  hieroglyphic  Inscription  of 
the  Rosetta  Stone  there  appeared  at  Dresden,  in  1804,  a pretended 
translation  of  the  mutilated  hieroglyphics,  wherein  the  author,  re- 
peating the  mystifications  of  Kircher,  recognized  in  the  fourteen 
lines  still  existing  of  the  hieroglyphical  characters,  (being  scarcely 
the  half  of  the  primitive  inscription,  before  the  stone  was  broken,) 
the  entire  and  perfect  expression  of  its  purport,  contained  in  the 
fifty-four  lines  of  the  Greek  Text ! To  outherod  Herod  in  pre- 
sumption, the  Dresden  author  reprinted  his  work  at  Florence,  after 
Champoilion’s  discoveries,  as  a sort  of  formal  protest  against  the 
new  direction  given  to  Egyptian  studies  ! 

An  interval  oceurred,  after  Akerblad's  discoveries,  before  any 


ostensible  advancement  was  made  in  the  deciphering  of  these  in- 
scriptions, when  the  celebrated  Dr.  Thomas  Young,  famed  for  the 
universality  of  his  acquirements,  published  in  1814,  in  the  “ Archaeo- 
logia  ” an  improvement  on  the  alphabet  of  Akerblad.  He  added  a 
translation  of  the  demotic  inscription,  placed  by  the  side  of  the 
Greek,  but  distinguishing  the  contents  of  the  different  lines,  with  as 
much  precision  as  he  could  then  acheive.  In  May,  lbl4,  Dr.  Young 
»published  in  the  sixth  No.  of  the  “Museum  Criticum,”  the  result  of 
his  labors  on  the  enchorial  text.  In  1818,  he  communicated  to 
the  learned  of  Europe,  a Memoir  specifying  his  discoveries  in  hie- 
roglyphics,  republished  in  the  year  1819,  in  the  Encyclopedia  Bri- 
tannica — of  which  anon.  Dr.  Young’s  interesting  labors  on  the 
demotic  text,  &c.,  may  be  consulted  in  Dr.  H.  TattanTs  Coptic 
Grammar. 

In  1816,  the  learned  German,  Tychsen,  of  Gottingen,  following  a 
different  method  of  reasoning,  was  enabled  to  prove  that  the  hie. 
ratio  character  (not  included  in  the  Rosetta  Stone)  was  but  a simple 
tachygraphy,  or  abridged  mode  of  writing,  a short-hand  in  fact,  of  tne 
hieroglyphical  inscriptions.  An  opinion  entertained  likewise  by  Dr. 
Young.  It  would  appear  that,  in  1812,  Champollion  held  the  same 
belief ; although,  at  that  time,  he  drew  from  the  fact  conclusions  dia- 
metrically at  variance  with  those  sustained  in  his  Memoir,  read,  in 
1821,  to  the  Royal  Academy  of  Belles  Lettres  at  Paris. 

Amid  all  the  above  interesting  researches,  the  secret  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  hieroglyphics,  though  nearly  reached,  or  vaguely  guessed 
at,  from  the  times  of  Warburton,  Zoega,  and  Prof.  Vater,  seemed  to 
elude  the  grasp  of  the  most  comprehensive  minds,  and  the  pursuit  of 
the  most  untiring  examiners.  Many  had  stated  their  conviction,  that 
hieroglyphics  constituted  a real  written  language,  applicable  to  all 
the  pursuits  of  common,  as  well  as  of  public  and  scientific  life  ; sus- 
ceptible of  translation,  and  capable  of  being  analyzed  into  an  alpha- 
bet, consisting  of  litttUi.  more  than  30  letters.  The  number  of  signs 
used  by  the  Copts  in  expressing  their  language,  consists  o£  the  Greek 
alpliabet  of  24  signs,  with  the  addition  of  7 characters  taken  from 
the  demotic  Egyptian  alphabet,  to  express  articulations,  or  sounds, 
for  which  the  Greek  alphabet  is  insufficient.  But,  of  the  many 
inquirers,  none  had  at  this  time  successfully  demonstrated  the  fact. 

While  these  labors  were  prosecuted  in  Europe,  there  were  two 
English  gentlemen  in  Egypt,  whose  studies  of  the  monuments  them- 
selves had  led  them  to  the  threshold  of  truth;  and  it  is  due  to  Messrs. 
J.  W.  Bankes  and  Consul-general  Salt  to  record,  that,  in  1818,  they 
had  identified  the  name  of  “ Cleopatra ” in  a hieroglyphical  oval  on 
the  obelisk  of  Philae  (subsequently  removed  to  England  for  Mr. 
Bankes,  by  Belzoni,)  to  which  conclusion  they  were  led  by  a Greek 
inscription,  on  the  same  obelisk,  confirmed  by  a variety  of  curious 
coincidences.  About  the  same  time,  1820,  some  very  extraordinary 
comparisons  were  afforded,  by  the  discovery  of  some  Greek  papyri — 
one  of  which  is  justly  renowned  as  the  property  of  George  F.  Grey, 
Esq.;  another,  containing  the  “ Sixth  Book  of  Homer,”  was  found 
in  Nubia  by  that  most  enterprising  of  Egyptian  travellers,  Monsieur 
A.  Linant,  now  chief  civil  engineer  in  the  service  of  Mohammed 
Ali.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  the  lamented  Henry  Salt  should  have 
delayed  announcing  to  the  world  his  own  further  discoveries  in  time ; 
because,  while  there  seems  every  likelihood  that  he  had  identified  the 
names  of  various  other  kings  on  the  monuments  of  Egypt,  before  he 
was  aware  of  Champollion’s  discoveries  ; yet,  it  must  be  allowed,  that 
priority  of  publication  is,  by  two  or  three  years,  in  favor  of  the  latter ; 
no  less  than  that,  to  the  latter  exclusively  belongs  the  merit  of  putting 
forth  his  system  at  once,  and  complete  beyond  all  previous  anticipa- 
tion, applicable  to  every  epoch,  and  to  every  legend  in  Egyptian 
history. 

The  supplement  to  the  4th  and  5th  editions  of  the  Encyclopedia 
Britannica — Edinburgh,  1819 — under  the  article  “ Egypt,”  cast  the 
first  beam  of  true  light  on  the  method  adopted  by  the  Egyptians,  in 
their  peculiar  art  of  writing  ; and  the  renown  of  Dr.  Young  spread 
far  and  wide  as  the  ingenious  author  of  this  interesting  essay.  To 
him  belongs  the  merit  of  positively  indicating  in  the  hieroglyphical 
groups  on  the  Rosetta  Stone,  the  names  of  “ Ptolemy”  and  “ Bere- 
nice ;”  and  the  probable  values  of  each  of  the  letters,  contained  in 
these  two  royal  ovals ; although  subsequent  investigations  reduced 
the  number  of  Dr.  Young’s  positive  demonstrations,  to  the  phonetic 
value  of  fve  distinct  characters,  corresponding  to  our  I,  N,  P,  T,  and 
F.  Dr.  Young’s  elaborate  article  explained  the  ingenious  and  curi 
ous  mechanical  process,  by  which  he  had  arrived  at  nis  conclusions. 
He  likewise  pointed  out  the  probable  meaning  of  some  two  hundred 
groups  of  hieroglyphic  characters;  many  of  which  interpretations 
have  been  confirmed  by  later  experience.  He  demonstrated,  that 
the  two  unknown  inscriptions  on  the  Rosetta  Stone  (the  hieroglyphic 
and  demotic)  were,  as  to  the  mode  of  expressing  ideas,  identical ; 
the  one  being,  in  good  measure,  a corruption,  abridgment,  or  running 
form  of  the  other.  He  moreover  ascertained  the  mode  of  numeration, 
used  by  the  Egyptians  in  hieroglyphic  writings. 

He  was  led,  however,  into  many  errors,  by  his  supposition  of  the 
existence  of  a syllabic  and  a dissyllabic  principle  in  the  composition 
of  phonetic  hieroglyphics ; whereas  Champollion  demonstrated,  that 
each  phonetic  hieroglyphic  was  a simple  consonant,  a vowel,  or  a 
diphthong. 

Dr.  Young,  however,  was  unable  to  carry  the  application  of  hir 
principles  of  interpretation  much  beyond  the  names  of  a “ Ptolemy: 


c 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


a '*  Berenice ,”  and  a “ Cleopatra."  He  had  found  the  key,  but  in 
his  hands,  it  failed  to  open  the  door  ; and  after  allowing  some  three 
years  to  elapse,  he  deliberately  stated  his  conviction  (in  his  “ Ac- 
count of  some  recent  discoveries  in  hieroglyphic  literature  and 
Egyptian  antiquities,”  London,  1823  ;)  “ that  the  ancient  Egyptians 
did  not  make  use  of  an  alphabet  to  represent!!^  sounds  and  articu- 
lations of  certain  words,  before  the  domination  of  the  Greeks  and  the 
Romans.”  In  short,  it  must  in  fairness  be  allowed,  that  between 
Champollion  and  Dr.  Young  there  is  little  parity  in  achievements; 
as  the  system  of  the  latter  could,  beyond  its  first  origin,  apply  itself 
to  nothing;  while  the  system  of  the  former  applies  itself  to  every- 
thing Egyptian.  Sir  Win.  Cell  and  Mr.  Wilkinson,  in  1821,  had 
already  turned  their  attention  to  these  subjects. 

I am  aware  of  the  extreme  jealousy  with  which  the  claim  of  priority 
in  hieroglyphical  interpretation,  between  Dr.  Young  and  Champol- 
lion le  Jeune  has  been  debated  ; and  that  a national  rivalry  has  been 
excited,  between  England  and  France  on  this  subject,  which,  if  in 
many  of  its  incidents  is  by  the  impartial  to  be  deplored,  yet  has  led 
to  an  emulation,  that  has  wonderfully  promoted  the  advancement  of 
science.  I confess,  that  my  own  tendencies  are  in  favor  of  the  Con- 
tinental side  of  the  question,  and  that  I recognize  in  Champollion  the 
master  spirit.  Without  wishing  to  detract  an  iota  from  Dr.  Young’s 
right  to  the  honor  of  discovering  the  Key,  I believe,  that  without  a 
Champollion,  but  little  progress  would  at  this  day  have  been  made  in 
Egyptian  archaeology.  My  readers  would  probably  not  be  interested 
in  the  details  of  the  controversy,  and  those  who  feel  curious  on  the 
question,  may  readily  verify  the  view  I take  by  consulting  the  authors 
themselves.  It  is  for  the  same  reason,  and  the  fear  of  being  tedious, 
that  I purposely  abstain  from  giving  illustrations  on  the  hieroglyph- 
ical points  in  dispute  ; because  my  object  is  to  give  the  results  of 
these  discoveries,  as  achieved  in  1842,  rather  than  the  doubts  and 
errors  of  1820.  It  will  be  seen,  in  the  course.qf  the  present  essays 
(and  future  lectures)  that  I omit  nothing,  tha'i  to  the  g.  neral  reader 
can  elucidaxe  the  theme.  My  part,  as  an  annalist,  is  sitiply  to  give 
this  succinct  sketch,  in  chronological  order,  by  way  of  preface  to  the 
developments  at  the  present  hour  absolutely  accomplished,  and 
incontrovertibly  established. 

It  appears  probable  that,  in  1812,  and  perhaps  for  8 years  after, 
Champollion  le  Jeune  did  not  believe,  that  the  hieratic  writing  of 
the  ancient  Egyptians  was  alphabetic — that  he  considered  the  hie- 
ratic of  the  Greek  authors  to  be  a “hieroglyphic  tachygraphy,”  and 
consequently  to  be  in  construction  identical  with  the  hieroglyphic  ; 
and  as  he  deemed  the  hieratic  to  be  signs  of  things,  and  not  of 
sounds,  it  follows,  that  he  did  not  recognize,  in  1812,  that  alphabetic 
principle  in  the  hieroglyphic  legends,  the  existence  of  which,  in  1822, 
he  thoroughly  demonstrated. 

The  27th  Sept.,  1822,  was  a memorable  day  to  antiquarian  laborers, 
and  inquirers  into  the  primeval  history  of  man  ; while,  to  the  Egyp- 
tian student,  it  is  an  era  equal  to  any  in  history.  On  that  day,  the 
illustrious  Champollion  le  Jeune  read  to  the  Royal  Academy  of  Belles 
Lettres  at  Paris,  his  “ Memoir  on  phonetic  hieroglyphics” — which, 
in  October,  was  published  under  the  title  of  “ Letters  to  Monsieur 
Dacier,  perpetual  Secretary  of  the  Academy” — wherein,  for  the  first 
dme  since  the  cessation  of  hieroglyphic  writing  (about  the  3rd  cen- 
tury after  Christ)  it  was  demonstrated,  that  “ the  ancient  Egyptians 
had  made  use  of  pure  hieroglyphical  signs,  that  is  to  say,  of  charac- 
ters representing  the  image  of  material  objects,  to  represent  simply 
the  sounds  of  the  names  of  Greek  and  Roman  sovereigns,  inscribed 
on  the  monuments  of  Dendera,  Thebes,  Esne,  Edfoo,  Ombos,  and 
Phila;.”  The  great  paleographer  thoroughly  established  his  propo- 
sition, in  the  application  of  his  phonetic  system  and  alphabetical 
hieroglyphics  to  the  epochs  of  the  Romans  and  the  Ptolemies.  He 
refrained  from  expressing,  at  the  time,  what  must  naturally  have  been 
his  own  hope,  if  not  conviction,  that  the  same  application  would  be 
found  consistent  with  and  analogous  to  hieroglyphic  inscriptions  of  an 
earlier  period  : but  time  was  required  for  the  collection  of  further 
materials,  before  openly  hazarding  an  opinion,  in  support  of  which  it 
was,  at  that  moment,  out  of  his  power  to  adduce  sufficient  evidence. 

The  Savans  of  Europe  were  astounded  at  the  success  and  method 
of  Champollion.  Every  one  was  struck  with  its  truth  : but  envy  was 
more  prominent  in  the  mass,  than  a desire  to  cooperate  with  the  illus- 
trious Frenchman.  There  were  many  learned  minds,  feeling  the 
force  of  the  discovery,  who  exclaimed,  as  when  Columbus  made  the 
egg  stand  on  its  end,  that,  “ nothing  was  easier,”  although  they  had 
none  of  them  discovered  it  before  ; and  time  has  shown,  that  the  ex- 
treme facility  with  which  hieroglyphics  were  now  to  be  deciphered, 
was,  for  some  years,  limited  to  the  presiding  genius — to  Champollion 
himself.  Detraction  was  the  weapon  wielded  with  most  facility 
by  the  critic;  and,  from  1822  to  the  present  hour,  it  is  infinitely  more 
facile  to  declare  that,  “hieroglyphical  interpretation  is  all  nonsense,” 
than  to  acquire,  by  study  and  patient  research,  a knowledge  of  the 
subject,  upon  which  it  has  been  so  fashionable  to  sneer  and  to  cavil. 

In  his  “ Egypt  under  the  Pharaohs,”  Champollion,  in  1814,  had 
recorded  his  hope,  “ that  there  would  be  at  last  rediscovered,  upon 
those  tablets,  whereon  Egypt  had  painted  but  material  objects,  the 
sounds  of  language,  and  the  expressions  of  thought.”  In  1822,  he 
fully  realized  that  hope : and  if  it  may  be  maintained,  that  the  first 
rays  of  true  light  burst  on  him  after  Dr.  Young’s  discoveries,  it  must, 
on  the  other  hand,  be  allowed,  that  the  use  he  made  of  its  then  par- 


tial flickering  has  immortalized  his  glorious  labors,  infinitely  beyond 
those,  not  only  of  his  contemporaries,  but  of  all  his  predecessors. 
Like  Archimedes,  Galileo,  Franklin,  Sir  Isaac  Newton,  Watt,  Har 
vey,  Fulton,  and  other  meteors  in  the  paths  of  science,  he  marked 
his  era  to  the  honor  of  himself,  to  the  glory  of  his  country,  and  to  the 
general  benefit  ol  mankind.  As  he  himself  declares,  “ my  hiero- 
glyphical alphabet  was  in  truth  grounded  upon  so  many  facts,  and 
positive  applications,  that  I had  to  fear,  less  the  controvertors,  than 
pretenders  to  a participation  in  my  discovery.” 

In  February,  1823,  there  appeared  in  the  London  Quarterly  Review, 
a journal  aptly  designated  by  Champollion  as  “ eminently  English," 
an  article,  wherein,  although  the  truths  of  the  results  published  by 
Champollion  in  his  “Letters  to  Monsieur  Dacier,”  are  acknowledged,  ‘iy 
the  writer  claimed  for  Dr.  Young  the  priority  of  the  discovery.  This 
was  followed  by  a small  volume  from  the  pen  of  Dr.  Young  himself ; 
entitled  “An  Account  of  some  Recent  Discoveries  in  Hieroglyphical 
Literature,  and  Egyptian  Antiquities,  including  the  Author’s  original 
Alphabet,  as  extended  by  Monsieur  Champollion.  London,  1823.” 

Impartiality  cannot  close  its  eyes  to  the  evident  tendency  of  the 
article  in  the  London  Quarterly,  written  in  a spirit  calculated  to 
arouse  the  national  jealousy  of  French  scientific  men,  and  still  more 
the  easily  excitable  anger  of  Champollion,  one  of  the  most  jealous 
savans  in  the  world.  Dr.  Young’s  book  was  an  ill-advised  and  fee- 
ble production ; and  instead  of  raising  its  author  above  the  elevated 
position  his  article  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britanica  had  secured  for 
him  in  1819,  its  effect  was  injurious  to  his  just  claims  of  priority,  as 
well  as  suicidal  to  his  less  deserved  hieroglyphical  pretensions.  The 
whole  affair  was  unfortunate,  as  it  proved,  that  although  Dr.  Young 
had  found  the  key  he  could  not  make  use  of  it;  and  the  tone  of 
captiousness  it  exhibits  was  extremely  prejudicial  to  his  literary  fame, 
long  established  on  the  secure  basis  of  his  vast  erudition  and  univer- 
sality of  genius. 

The  ire  of  Champollion  was  fully  aroused.  He  bent  his  mighty 
energies  to  the  task  ; and  in  the  autumn  and  winter  of  1823  he 
composed,  and  in  1824  he  put  forth  his  “Precis  du  systeme  hiero- 
glyphique  des  Anciens  Egyptiens  wherein,  with  the  hands  of  a 
giant,  he  stripped  Dr.  Young  even  of  the  measure  of  merit  he  would 
have  enjoyed  unmolested,  but  for  the  Quarterly  Review  and  his  own 
“Account”  above  mentioned;  and  at  the  same  time,  with  singular 
felicity  of  analysis,  reduced  Dr.  Young’s  claim  of  priority  to  indi- 
cating the  phonetic  value  of  5 letters,  instead  of  nine,  which  Dr. 
Young  had  appropriated  to  himself  exclusively. 

With  the  force  of  an  earthquake  the  illustrious  Frenchman  over- 
threw the  puny  edifices  of  his  predecessor  ; and,  from  that  hour,  the 
Annals  of  Egypt,  her  time-honored  chronicles,  her  papyri  crumbling 
in  the  dust  of  ages,  ceased  to  be  mysteries!  The  “Veil  of  Isis” — 

“ the  curtain  that  no  mortal  hand  could  raise  ” — which,  for  2000 
years,  had  baffled  the  attempts  of  Greeks  and  Romans,  with  the  still 
more  vigorous  efforts  of  modern  Egyptologists — was  lifted  by  Cham- 
pojj.ion  le  Jeune:  and  the  glories  of  Pharaonic  epochs — the  deeds 
of  the  noblest,  the  most  learned,  pious,  warlike,  and  civilized  race  of 
ancient  days — whose  monarchy  has  exceeded  by  1000  years  the 
duration  of  any  of  our  modem  nations — whose  works  surpass  in 
magnitude,  in  boldness  of  conception,  accuracy  of  execution,  and 
splendor  of  achievement  the  mightiest  labors  of  any  other  people — 
and  whose  lordly  dominion  over  the  nations  of  the  earth  at  one  period 
perhaps  equalled  the  territorial  extent  of  Muscovy,  at  the  present  day ; 
have,  through  Champollion’s  labors,  and  through  those  of  his  col- 
leagues and  disciples,  become  familiar  to  all  whose  inclination  has 
prompted  them  to  read  the  works  which,  since  1824,  have  issued 
from  the  press  of  Europe. 

The  immediate  results  of  Champollion’s  labors  in  1824,  served  to 
establish  the  fact,  that  the  greater  portion  of  those  signs  or  repre. 
sentations  of  material  objects,  sculptured,  painted,  or  delineated  in 
all  hieroglyphical  texts  and  legends,  were  phonetic ; and  thoroughly 
reducible,  as  in  due  time  by  him  effected,  into  an  alphabet  composed 
of  16  distinct  articulations,  for  each  of  which  there  w'as  a number 
more  or  less  great  of  homophones — i.  e symbols,  differing  in  figure, 
though  identical  in  sound— applicable  according  to  a well-defined 
system,  and  never  solely  by  graphical  caprice.  He  proved,  that  the 
hieroglyphic  mode  of  writing  is  a complex  system — a system  figura- 
tive, symbolical,  and  phonetic  (I  will  explain  these  terms  in  due 
course,)  always  in  the  same  text,  sometimes  in  the  same  phrase,  and 
often  in  the  same  word.  He  proved  the  idea  to  be  illusory,  (although 
so  frequently  put  forth  by  his  predecessors,  and  reiterated  by  some 
of  his  contemporaries,)  that  no  alphabet  was  in  use  in  Egypt;  or  that 
hieroglyphical  phonetic  writing  had  been  introduced  into  that  coun- 
try after  the  Persian  invasion  in  B.  C.  525.  He  overthrew  the  doc- 
trine, that  phonetic  signs  were  first  employed  in  Egypt,  after  Psam- 
metichus,  B.  C.  650,  who  first  allowed  the  “Impure  Foreigners,” 
the  Greeks  and  others  (to  Egyptians,  Gentile  and  barbarian  nations) 
to  sojourn  in  and  to  become  citizens  of  Egypt ; for,  in  his  “ Precis  ” 
he  demonstrated,  that  it  was  in  unquestionable,  constant,  general, 
and  popular  use  at  the  period  of  the  18th  Diospolitan  dynasty,  or 
back  to  the  19th  century  B.  C.  His  subsequent  researches,  and  the 
labors  of  his  disciples,  have  established,  that  it  was  equally  so  2300 
years  B.  C. — that  ages  prior  to  this  last  epoch,  at  the  time  of  the 
erection  of  the  Pyramids,  this  mode  of  writing  was  just  as  perfect  as 
at  any  period  after;  while  the  commencement  of  the  art,  or  even  th* 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


7 


incipient  development  of  hieroglyphic  writing,  including  the  employ- 
ment of  the  phonetic  system,  lies  buried  in  those  countless  days 
before  the  Pyramids,  enveloped  in  utter  obscurity,  amid  the  primeval 
origin  of  nations,  and  infinitely  beyond  our  present  attainment,  if  not 
our  comprehension. 

A pause  followed  Champollion’s  Precis.  The  force  of  his  conclu- 
sions laid  bare  consequences  too  astounding  to  be  thoroughly  esti- 
mated, even  by  the  most  learned  and  the  most  enthusiastic  Egyptian 
students.  Like  the  atmospheric  stillness  that  follows  the  thunder- 
clap, genius  seemed  paralyzed  by  the  portentous  aspect  of  the  truth. 
On  the  one  hand,  the  classical  scholars,  adhering  rigidly  to  the  He- 
brew, Greek,  and  Latin  authorities,  were  not  willing  to  cast  aside 
the  errors  of  their  masters ; and  those,  whose  schools  had  nailed 
their  colors  to  the  mast,  were  not  prepared  to  see  Manetho  exalted 
above  Herodotus  and  Diodorus  ; to  find  Hermapion  confirmed,  while 
Pliny  was  rejected  ; to  behold  in  Plato  but  the  translator,  or  in  Pytha- 
goras but  the  adopter,  of  Egyptian  mythological  doctrines;  still  less 
to  consider  what  amount  of  instruction  accrued  to  the  Hebrew  Law- 
giver from  his  education  in  Helioftolitan  colleges;  for  “ Moses  was 
learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians.” — Acts  vii.  22. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  astronomers  and  mathematicians,  the 
Dupuis,  the  Bodes  and  Rhodes,  the  Goerres  and  Creuzers,  the  Four- 
riers  and  Biots,  who  had  claimed  for  the  zodiacal  planispheres  of 
Dendera  and  Esnfe,  an  antiquity  varying  from  700  to  17,000  years 
B.  C.,  were  not  particularly  charmed  with  a science  which  demon- 
strated, by  hieroglyphical  interpretation,  what  the  learned  Visconti 
had  sustained  20  years  before,  amid  the  sneers  of  his  cotemporaries, 
that  these  astrological  subjects  were  the  most  modern  productions 
of  Egypto-Roman  art,  and  Egypto-Hellenic  science,  of  the  age  of 
Tiberius,  Nero,  Claudius,  Hadrian,  or  Antoninus. 

Christian  divines,  apprehending  the  progress  of  infidelity,  if  no 
records  of  the  Hebrews  were  to  be  found  in  Egypt,  no  memento  of 
the  Patriarchs,  or  of  the  Exodus,  in  hieroglyphical  legends,  looked 
with  discountenance  on  the  new  science,  and  clung  to  the  good  old 
unintelligibilities  of  profane  writers;  while  other  well-meaning  per- 
sons snatched  with  avidity  at  supposititious  confirmations,  in  points 
wherein  there  is  no  confirmation  to  be  found.  It  was  extremely 
provoking  to  some  finished  Hebrew,  Greek,  or  Latin  classic  to  find, 
that  these  perverse  old  Egyptians,  besides  resorting  to  such  “a  queer 
mode  of  writing,”  should  have  actually  used  Coptic  for  their  language, 
whereby  a hieroglyphic  text  required  a double  study,  before  it  could 
be  rendered  into  any  of  our  modern  tongues.  How  much  more 
convenient  would  it  not  have  been,  if  the  living  antecedent  of  the 
mummy  had  talked  in  Latin,  or  in  Greek,  or  at  least  in  Hebrew ; 
and  if  this  self-willed  individual  would  use  Coptic  for  his  ordinary 
language,  why  were  not  the  dialects  spoken  at  the  rise  of  the  16th 
Theban  dynasty,  about  22  centuries  B.  C.,  the  same  as  were  spoken 
in  Egypt  about  500  years  after  our  Saviour,  when  the  liturgies  which 
we  now  possess  in  the  Coptic  tongue  began  to  be  composed  ? In 
Bhort,  it  must  be  acknowledged,  Champollion’s  discoveries  were  to 
the  mass  of  the  learned,  in  all  countries,  unpopular  and  unpleasing; 
and  a cold  and  suspicious  reception  was  the  first  welcome  with  which 
the  “ Precis  ” was  received  by  the  many,  although  the  work  met  with 
applause,  and  the  author  found  instant  solace  in  the  admiration  of 
the  few. 

After  the  pause,  came  in  natural  process  a reaction.  On  every 
side,  doubts,  difficulties,  dilemmas,  and  obstacles  were,  with  won. 
derful  ingenuity,  and  not  a little  malignity,  suggested.  Efforts  of  all 
kinds  were  made  to  stem  the  torrent  of  conviction,  or  to  direct  it  into 
an  unpropitious  channel.  It  may  be  remarked,  that  none  were  slower 
in  admitting  the  value  of  Champollion’s  discoveries,  than  some  of  the 
then  surviving  members  of  the  French  “ Institute  of  Egypt,”  whose 
profound  erudition  is  displayed  in  the  great  French  work : and  to 
this  day,  there  is  a set  of  really  great  men  in  Europe,  who  continue 
to  write  largely  on  ancient  Egypt,  without  alluding  at  all  to  what  the 
old  Egyptians  record  of  their  own  history,  and  as  if  a single  hiero- 
glyphic had  not  been  deciphered ! Some,  w'ith  the  ostrich,  bury  their 
heads  in  the  sand,  and  with  a curious  self-complacency  fancy  all 
mankind  as  blind  as  themselves.  Others,  reposing  on  the  well-earned 
laurels  of  former  deeds,  or  on  the  sanction  of  eminent  names,  are 
happy  in  knowing  that  they,  at  least,  had  no  hand  in  advancing  the 
new  discoveries ; while,  by  the  disciples  of  Champollion,  the  works 
of  these  gentlemen,  as  they  issue  from  the  press,  are  laid  on  the  shelf, 
as  “ emanations  from  a superannuated  school  of  feminine  senility.” 
But,  of  course,  the  severest  shafts  were  those  of  facetiousness  and 
satire — ridicule  being  the  deadliest  of  weapons — the  most  difficult  to 
parry — the  most  agreeable  to  the  public.  However,  Champollion, 
and  the  fellow-laborers  whom  his  discoveries  soon  rallied  around  his 
hieroglyphic  standard,  kept  steadily  at  work. 

Sow'arroff,  when  the  siege  of  Ismail  had  baffled  Russia’s  ablest 
generals,  used,  in  his  shirt,  to  head  the  awkward  squads  of  his  troops, 
in  a bayonet-charge  against  sticks,  picketted  in  the  earth  and  sur- 
mounted with  rag-turbans,  to  accustom  his  raw  recruits  to  face  the 
“ turbanned  Turk,”  greatly  to  the  amusement  and  derision  of  his 
staff.  Like  Sowarroff  in  his  military  exercises,  so  Champollion  in 
his  hieroglyphical  researches,  pursued  a system 

“ At  which  they  sneered  in  phrases  wondrous  witty. 

He  made  no  answer ; but,  he  took  the  city." 

The  succeeding  three  years  were,  by  Champollion,  employed  in 


studying  and  deciphering  all  those  monuments  and  Egyptian  relics, 
contained  in  Continental  museums,  of  which  he  could  consult  the 
originals,  or  obtain  facsimile  copies.  In  two  invaluable  “Letters,” 
addressed  to  the  Duke  of  Blacas  (Due  dc  Blacas,)  he  published  a 
multitude  of  curious  facts  and  discoveries,  gleaned  chiefly  from  the 
study  of  the  antiqtfijws  preserved  in  the  royal  collections  at  Turin. 
To  the.se  letters,  his  learned  brother,  Champollion  Figeac,  added,  by 
way  of  appendix,  a chronological  dissertation,  having  for  its  main 
object  to  reconcile  Manetho  with  the  discrepancies  of  other  authors. 
A second  and  improved  edition  of  the  “Precis”  was  issued  by  Cham- 
pollion, on  his  return  to  France  from  Turin,  wherein  he  corrected 
many  of  his  former  hasty  conclusions,  and  modified  some  of  his 
prior  opinions.  He  likewise  put  forth,  in  this  interval,  an  “ Egyptian 
Pantheon,”  by  which  much  light  was  thrown  on  the  mythology,  phi- 
losophy, and  religious  doctrines  and  rites  of  this  ancient  people.  He 
corresponded  on  these  subjects  with  some  of  the  most  eminent  ar- 
chaeologists of  the  age,  and  paved  the  way  for  the  realization  of  his 
dearest  wish,  a visit  to  Egypt,  and  the  personal  study  of  all  the  monu- 
ments existing  in  the  Nilotic  Valley. 

In  1825,  Charles  Coquerel,  a Protestant  clergyman  at  Amsterdam, 
compared  the  chronologies  of  Scripture  with  the  new  discoveries, 
and  pointed  out  the  advantages  which  the  one  derived  from  the  other. 
The  erudite  and  liberal  Dr.  Wiseman  of  Rome,  in  his  “Horae  Syri- 
acte,”  1828,  followed  in  the  same  field;  adding  a curious  Syriac  frag- 
ment, found  in  the  Vatican,  confirmatory  of  the  views  of  Champollion 
Figeac.  The  Marquis  Spineto,  in  1829,  in  a course  of  lectures, 
published  after  their  delivery  at  Cambridge,  in  a very  able  manner 
unfolded  the  “ elements  of  hieroglyphics.”  The  Abbd  Greppo  and 
the  Rev.  M.  Bovet,  in  the  same  year,  lent  their  aid  in  establishing 
scriptural  and  monumental  comparisons.  On  the  opposite  side,  Abbd 
Count  Robiano  instituted  an  ingenious  analysis  of  hieroglyphic  and 
demotic  texts.  He  endeavored  to  establish  forced  Hebrew  affinities: 
but  his  work  is  valuable,  as  it  goes  to  show  the  Semitic  origin  of 
Coptic,  and  thence  we  may  infer  the  Asiatic  origin  of  that  language, 
which  we  shall  find  singularly  confirmed  by  the  paleographic  re- 
searches of  another  hierological  master,  Dr.  Leipsius  of  Berlin,  in  his 
correspondence  with  Chevalier  Baron  Bunsen,  as  in  his  numerous 
later  works.  From  this  date,  the  increase  of  works  all  over  Europe 
has  been  so  rapid,  on  various  branches  of  Egyptian  science,  that  it 
would  be  tedious  to  give  merely  a dry  catalogue  ; nor  do  I pretend 
to  have  had  an  opportunity  of  consulting  them  all. 

While  we  have  endeavored  to  keep  pace  with  the  progress  of  the 
master  up  to  the  year  1827,  it  is  peculiarly  gratifying  to  revert  to  the 
labors  prosecuted  in  Egypt  by  some  of  his  disciples.  It  is  always 
pleasing  to  render  justice  to  the  operations  of  men  of  science  and 
learning;  and  the  names  of  Burton,  Wilkinson,  Felix,  Prudhoe,  and 
Hay,  are  too  honorably  associated  with  early  Egyptian  studies,  in 
phonetic  hieroglyphics,  not  to  demand  in  this  place  especial  mention. 

With  Dr.  Young’s  key,  and  Champollion’s  alphabet  contained  in 
his  letter  to  M.  Dacier,  a group  of  scientific  Englishmen  commenced 
in  Egypt  itself,  about  1822,  the  scrutiny  and  examination  of  all  the 
Monuments  of  antiquity  existing,  from  the  Sea-beach  to  Upper  N ubia, 
from  the  Oases  to  the  peninsula  of  Mount  Sinai,  and  in  every  direc 
tion  in  the  Eastern  and  Western  Deserts.  These  gentlemen,  named 
above,  mutually  aiding  and  cooperating  "/ith  each  other,  were  enabled 
to  take  instant  advantage  of  the  true  method  of  interpretation.  Egypt 
was  then  all  virgin  ground.  Every  temple,  every  tomb,  contained 
something  unknown  before ; and  which  these  gentlemen  were  the 
first  to  date,  and  to  describe  with  accurate  details.  A more  intensely 
interesting  field  never  opened  to  the  explorer — every  step  being  a 
discovery.  Nobly  did  these  learned  and  indefatigable  travellers  pio- 
neer the  way,  and  mighty  have  been  the  results  of  their  arduous  labors. 
They  procured  lithographic  presses  from  England  ; and,  at  their  indi- 
vidual expense,  for  private  circulation,  Messrs.  Felix,  Burton,  and 
Wilkinson  printed  (at  Cairo — 1826  to  1829)  and  circulated  a mass 
of  hieroglyphical  tablets,  legends,  genealogical  tables,  texts,  mytho- 
logical, historical,  and  other  subjects,  w'hich,  under  the  modest  titles 
of  “Notes,”*  “Excerpta,”t  and  “Materia  Hieroglyphics, ”t  were 
disseminated  to  learned  societies  in  Europe.  Lord  Prudhoe’s  distant 
excursions  and  correct  memoranda  rendered  the  collections  of  anti- 
quities, with  which  he  enriched  England,  extremely  valuable  ; and 
his  labors  were  the  more  appreciated,  as  his  lordship’s  liberal  mind 
and  generous  patronage  of  science  w'ere  above  any  sordid  motives 
of  acquisitiveness.  Mr.  Hay’s  own  accurate  pencil,  aided  by  various 
talented  artists  whom  his  princely  fortune  enabled  him  to  employ, 
amassed  an  amount  of  drawings,  that  render  his  portfolios  the  largest 
in  the  world.  The  researches  of  all  these  gentlemen  have  been  of 
incalculable  value  to  the  cause.  They  have  preserved  accurate  data 
on  subjects, § that  the  destroying  hand  of  Mohammed  Ali  has  since 
irrevocably  obliterated  ; and  as  they  all  pursued  science  for  itself,  they 
deserve  and  enjoy  a full  measure  of  respect.  The  rumor  of  their 
successes  reached  Europe ; and  Champollion,  with  reason,  appre- 
hended, that  if  he  delayed  his  visit  to  Egypt  any  longer,  the  indivi. 
dual  labors  of  English  travellers  would  render  that  visit  as  unprofitable 


* By  Major  Felix  : republished,  in  Italian,  at  Fisa, 
t By  James  Halliburton,  Esq. ; out  of  print. 
t By  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson  ; do. 

§ See  my  “Appeal  to  the  Antiquaries  of  Europe,  on  the  Destruction  of  the  Monu- 
ments of  Egypt.”  1SU,  London,  Madden  & Co.  New  York,  Sartlttt  & Weiford. 


8 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


as  unnecessary.  National  jealousy  was  excited;  and,  to  preserve 
her  position  as  the  patroness  of  Egyptian  literature,  France  deter- 
mined not  to  be  anticipated. 

In  1828,  the  French  government  sent  a commission,  consisting  of 
Champollion  le  Jeune,  and  four  French  artists,  well  supplied  with 
every  necessary  outfit,  to  Egypt,  in  order  that  ■ffi’.a  master  might,  for 
his  own  and  his  country’s  honor,  and  at  her  expense,  reap  the  harvest 
for  which  his  hand  had  sown  the  seed.  A similar  design  having 
suggested  itself  to  another  patron  of  arts  and  sciences,  the  Grand 
Duke  of  Tuscany,  the  celebrated  archaeologist  and  oriental  scholar, 
Professor  Ippolito  Rosellini,  of  the  University  of  Pisa,  and  four  Ital- 
ian artists  under  his  direction,  were  appointed  a commission  to  pro- 
ceed to  Egypt,  with  the  same  intent  as  the  French  mission.  It  was 
amicably  arranged  by  the  respective  governments,  and  between  the 
chiefs  of  each  expedition,  that  their  labors  should  be  united  ; and,  in 
consequence,  the  French  and  Tuscan  missions  were  blended  into 
one,  and  both  reached  Alexandria  in  the  same  vessel,  and  prosecuted 
their  labors  hand  in  hand  from  Memphis  to  the  second  Cataract. 
They  returned  in  1829. 

We  are  now  approaching  a period,  when,  for  all  local  Egyptian 
annals,  my  own  personal  recollection  will  supply  the  place  of  books  ; 
and  I am  able  to  speak  as  a spectator,  and  a little  later  as  a very  hum- 
ble actor,  in  some  of  the  scenes,  of  which  I shall  incidentally  give 
sketches.  These  may  be  thought  curious  by  my  readers,  and  I can 
assure  them,  that  they  are  known  to  very  few,  and  have  never  been 
published.  I have  said,  that  from  1829  my  local  recollection  serves ; 
but,  to  avoid  misapprehension,  I will  mention,  that  my  sojourn  in 
Egypt  dates  from  1818,  and  with  intervals  of  absence  has  been  pro- 
longed during  23  years,  to  1841 ; and  consequently,  I presume  to 
entertain  opinions  of  my  own,  on  any  affairs  to  which  I am  a party. 
I mention  these  circumstances,  with  an  apology  for  alluding  to  my- 
eelf,  only  to  satisfy  my  readers,  that  I am  not  a stranger  in  the  land 
of  Egypt,  and  may  be  allowed  to  speak  from  personal  knowledge  and 
long  experience,  without  reference  to  the  works  or  opinions  of  gen- 
tlemen, who,  however  greatly  they  surpass  me  in  acquirements  and 
talents,  remained  but  a few  weeks,  months,  or  years,  in  the  valley  of 
the  Nile  ; and  whose  Egyptian  sojournings,  in  point  of  duration,  can 
rarely  be  spoken  of  in  the  same  breath  with  my  own.  In  fact,  I feel 
myself  to  be  a foreigner  in  every  other  country;  and  if,  on  ancient 
Egyptian  matters,  I am  proud  to  consider  myself  the  humblest  fol- 
lower in  the  footsteps  of  the  hieroglyphical  masters,  or  if,  on  scientific 
subjects,  I make  no  claim  to  anything  beyond  the  merest  superficial 
acquaintance,  it  is  not  presumption  in  me  to  declare,  that,  on  modern 
and  on  local  Egyptian  topics,  I need  acknowledge  few  superiors  in 
or  out  of  that  country.  Those  who  have  been  at  Cairo,  in  my  time, 
among  whom  I have  much  pleasure  in  enumerating  a host  of  Amer- 
ican travellers,  will  allow,  that  in  this  personal  digression,  I do  not 
arrogate  to  myself  more  than  their  own  experience  will  in  fairness 
concede  to  me. 

The  arrival  in  Egypt  of  the  French  and  Tuscan  expeditions,  added 
new  fuel  to  the  flame  of  antiquarian  jealousy,  which,  for  thirty  years, 
had  characterized  the  archaeological  devotees  of  England  and  France 
in  that  country  : but,  in  this  later  strife,  the  actors,  by  their  pure 
love  of  science  and  national  spirit  of  emulation,  were  divested  of 
those  sordid  motives  which  disgraced  their  predecessors,  and  perhaps 
some  of  their  successors.  Up  to  1825,  the  competition  between  the 
representatives  of  Britain  and  France,  Mr.  Consul  General  Salt,  and 
Monsieur  le  Consul  General  Drovetti,  had  not  been,  as  to  which  of 
them  should  immortalize  his  labors  by  the  most  useful  examinations 
ii»  ancient  Egyptian  lore  ; but,  in  the  immense  works  and  excava- 
tions each  of  these  gentlemen  undertook,  sordid  acquisitiveness  was 
the  moving  principle.  They  did  not  squabble  with  each  other,  lest 
the  one  should  verify  before  his  antagonist,  on  a mouldering  temple, 
some  interesting  point  of  history.  One  did  not  strive  to  surpass  the 
other  in  expounding  the  mysterious  hieroglyphical  legends.  They 
quarrelled  over  a granite  Sphinx,  not  as  to  which  Pharaoh  it  had  be- 
longed, but  as  to  what  price  its  sale  would  bring  in  Europe.  Anti- 
quities were  valuable  in  their  eyes,  simply  according  to  their  estimate 
of  what  they  would  sell  for,  when  transferred  from  the  ruins  to  the 
competition  of  European  virtuosi.* 

* Mohammed  Ali.and  his  astute  minister  Bonhos,  fanned  tiiese  jealousies,  which  were 
lo  many  pledges,  that  Salt  and  Drovetti,  while  absorbed  in  intrigues,  schemes  and  maneu- 
vres  to  circumvent  each  other  in  the  abstraction  of  a saleable  relic,  would,  in  common 
with  their  subordinate  officers,  (who  at  the  same  time  were  fattening  on  cotton,  beans, 
&c.,)  naturally  close  their  eyes  to  barefaced  infractions  of  every  commercial  treaty  be- 
tween Europe  and  the  Sublime  Porte,  of  every  law  ofthe  Ottoman  Empire,  and  of  the 
free-trade  principles  of  the  Koran  itself.  The  P isha  promoted  this  rivalry,  by  giving 
extra  facilities  to  each,  thereby  rendering  the  trade  in  antiquities  a consular  monopoly 
of  France,  Great  Britain,  and  Sweden ; well  knowing,  that  by  filling  the  pockets  ofthe 
representatives  of  the  first  two,  and  using  the  other.  Signor  D’Anastasy,  as  a sort  of 
cloak  to  their  proceedings,  he  should  place  them  under  such  lasting  obligations  to  him- 
self, that  they  would  follow  the  wheels  of  his  chariot,  without  daring  to  remonstrate 
against  his  ruinous  commercial  system. 

It  was  not  until  1840,  that  the  British  government  believed  the  often  disregarded  com- 
plaints of  her  merchants,  saw  through  the  mystifications  ofthe  Pasha,  and  peremptorily 
•topped  the  proceedings  of  H.  M.  consuls-genernl.  by  a radical  change  of  the  "person- 
nel.” Feeling  that  I have  had  a hand  in  some  of  these  changes,  it  is  to  me  a legitimate 
cause  of  triumph ; and  when  I look  back  at  the  difficulties  overcome,  I indulge  in  pleas- 
ing anticipations  of  the  future. 

Salt  however,  it  must  in  justice  he  ndded,  was  a gentleman  nnd  a scholar,  possessed 
of  many  estimable  qualities;  and.  if  he  sold  the  tablet  that  he  had  succeeded  in  with- 
holding from  the  corsair-cl  itches  of  Drovetti.  he  certainly  did  his  best  to  embellisli.his 
invoices  with  antiquarian  annotations.  He  died  in  1827,  leaving  a large  fortune,  made  I 


The  enthusiastic  English  travellers,  above  referred  to,  having 
labored  with  great  success  on  the  virgin  soil  of  local  studies  in  hie- 
roglyphics, felt  persuaded,  as  they  had  not  at  that  period  published 
the  entire  results  of  their  researches,  that  if  they  came  into  personal 
contact  with  the  arch-Egyptologist  himself,  amid  the  ruins  along  the 
Nile,  it  would  be  said,  on  their  return  to  Europe,  and  on  the  publica. 
tion  of  their  own  discoveries,  that  they  had  derived  all  their  inform- 
ation from  Champollion.  They  consequently  took  such  steps,  as 
precluded  the  possibility  of  a rencontre  in  Egypt.  On  the  other  side, 
Champollion  looked  upon  them  as  interlopers  and  trespassers  on 
that  field,  which,  with  more  vehemence  than  propriety,  he  considered 
his  own  exclusive  prerogaiive — the  expounding  of  hieroglyphics  on 
the  ruins  of  Egypt.  Many  laughable  incidents  were  the  conse- 
quences  of  this  mutual  diffidence,  and  the  following  anecdote  will 
give  an  idea  of  the  whole. 

The  works  of  Arabian  authors,  Abd-el-Lateef,  Makrisi,  Murtady, 
JellM-ed-deen-El-Assyobtee,  and  others,  contain,  among  many  re- 
markable passages,  some  details  on  the  spoliations  of  Memphis  and 
Heliopolis,  effected  by  the  Saracenic  Caliphate,  since  the  conquest 
of  Egypt  by  Ahmer-ebn-el-As  (in  Anno  Domini,  638,  Hejira,  16  ;) 
for  the  construction  of  the  various  edifices  of  Saracenic  magnificence 
at  Cairo.  A vast  number  of  curious  relics,  and  fragments  of  Phara- 
onic periods  have  been  discovered,  fjid  many  more  lie  embedded  in 
the  buildings  of  this  Mahommedan  city,  which  time  will  bring  to 
light.  One  of  these  English  explorers  especially  devoted  himself, 
for  a long  period,  to  the  examination  of  all  such  places  as  he  thought 
might  contain  ruins  of  earlier  epochs  ; and  he  discovered  a slab  of 
basalt,  forming  the  lintel  of  a doorway,  in  an  unfrequented  and  dilap- 
idated mosque,  whereon  was  engraved  a trilinguar,  or  rather  a tri. 
grammatic  inscription. 

Having  consulted  with  his  fellow  travellers,  application  was  made, 
through  the  British  consul  general,  to  Mohammed  Ali  at  Alexan- 
dria, for  permission  to  remove  this  block,  with  an  offer  to  repair  the 
mosque,  as  a compensation  for  the  favor.  In  Egypt,  whatever  may 
be  the  case  elsewhere,  it  is  impossible  to  keep  a secret  from  the  fer- 
ret-like propensities  of  courtiers  ; and  whether  instigated  by  Dro- 
vetti or  not,  the  Pasha  refused,  on  the  ground  of  sacrilege,  desecration, 
and  other  canting  phrases;  the  Viceroy,  (who  has  destroyed  more 
ancient  remains  than  any  individual  in  the  world,  and  whose  sacri- 
legious hand  spared  not  the  edifices  of  Islkm  itself)  being  wonder, 
fully  happy  in  this,  as  in  all  other  cases,  in  seizing  on  dexterous 
excuses  and  shuffling  expedients.  Mohammed  Ali  declined,  how- 
ever, giving  it  to  the  French  mission,  lest  he  should  offend  the  Eng- 
lish after  their  prior  application. 

Champollion,  on  the  good  faith  of  a friend,  was,  in  an  evil  hour, 
taken  by  an  English  traveller  to  see  the  block,  as  it  stood  in  the 
mosque  at  Cairo.  He  instantly  perceived  its  possible  value.  Dro- 
vetti was  sent  for  from  Alexandria  ; and  a plot  was  laid  by  him  with 
the  skill  of  one  of  the  most  finished  conspirators  of  modern  times. 
In  Egypt,  Ibrahim  Pasha,  the  son  of  Mohammed  Ali,  can  do  what- 
ever he  pleases  ; and  as  he  was  quite  unaware  of  his  father’s  refusal, 
Drovetti  applied  to  him,  for  permission  to  take  the  stone,  which  he 
granted  ; but,  to  avoid  giving  offence  to  the  natives,  which  might 
have  been  the  case  if  Europeans  had  done  the  work,  he  said  he 
would  cause  it  to  be  executed  for  himself,  and  gave  orders  for  its  re- 
moval the  next  day.  Timely  information  reached  the  English  trav- 
ellers ; who,  provoked  beyond  measure  at  the  duplicity  of  the  opposite 
parties,  went  in  the  night,  removed  the  block,  and  carried  it  to  the 
English  consulate,  where  it  was  carefully  deposited.  The  indigna- 
tion of  the  French  party,  when  it  was  known  that  the  stone  had 
been  abstracted,  may  be  conceived ; Ibrahim  Pasha  himself  was  not 
a little  annoyed.  A tremendous  row  ensued.  Mohammed  Ali  went 
off  to  Cairo,  followed  by  the  British  consul  general.  Ibrahim’s 
influence  was  all-powerful ; and  knowing  that  “ his  beard  had  been 
laughed  at,”  he  persuaded  his  father  to  insist  on  the  restitution  of 
the  stone  to  the  Egyptian  government. 

In  the  mean  time,  the  Englishmen  having  had  abundance  of  leisure 
to  take  facsimile  copies,  impressions,  and  plaster-casts,  of  the  stone  ; 
and  having  thereby  ascertained  that,  from  its  very  mutilated  condi- 
tion, the  inscriptions  were  of  trivial  value,  sent  the  block  to  the  pa- 
lace, with  an  intimation  that  it  was  not  worth  keeping,  and  forwarded 
their  copies  instantly  to  Europe.  The  stone  was  transferred  to  the 
Frenchmen  by  the  gift  of  the  Pasha;  and  is  now  in  the  museum  at 
Paris.  I was  an  amused  eye-witness  of  the  rabid  indignation  of 
Drovetti,  when  the  stone  first  arrived  at  the  French  consulate  in 
Alexandria.  There  are  some  biting  sentences  in  the  last  “ Letters” 


by  collections  of  antiquities ; lamented  as  an  amiable  kind-hearted  man,  even  by  those 
who  had  suffered  most  from  his  indifference  to  commercial  interests.  After  his  demise, 
ASsop’s  fable  ofthe  frogs,  who  once  petitioned  Jove  for  a king,  was  realized  by  the  mer 
cantile  community  in  Egypt.  King  Log,  Mr.  ******,  not  pleasing  the  marshy  tribe 
was  succeeded  by  king  Crane.  Col.  ********t  who  continued  extremely  friendly  to 
Mohammed  Ali,  although  his  speculations  in  antiquities  were  not  remarkably  profitable 
in  results,  or  splendid  in  conception.  The  farce  continued,  however,  till  1840 ; when,  by 
the  expenditure  of  treasure  and  torrents  of  human  blood,  the  spell  was  broken ; and 
twenty  years  of  mystification  about  Mohammed  All’s  philanthropic  utilities,  and  civili 
zing  tendencies,  began  to  be  doubted  in  Europe.  Gradually  the  Pasha’*  system  of 
monopoly  is  falling  before  the  remonstrances  of  British  official  characters ; who  are  nei- 
ther to  be  frightened  by  Boghos,  or  fascinated  by  Mohammed  AJi : neither  to  be  turned 
aside  by  antiquities,  or  to  be  crammed  with  lands,  cotton,  beans,  and  other  tokens  of  ms 
highness’s  partiality 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


9 


of  Champollion  from  Egypt,  to  which  this  anecdote  may  serve  as  a 
running  commentary 

This  fact,  with  others  of  similar  nature,  will  serve  to  explain  the 
mode  in  which  “ aifairs  are  managed”  at  the  Pasha’s  court ; and  also 
the  early  jealousies  and  bickerings  among  hieroglyphical  savans.  To 
those  who  may  have  read  the  works  that  during  the  last  twelve  years 
have  issued  from  the  European  press  in  the  new  school  of  archteol. 
ogy,  this  explanation  will  be  found  useful ; serving  them  as  a clue, 
whereby  to  comprehend  incongruities  that  must  frequently  strike  the 
impartial  reader,  by  indicating  the  relative  positions  of  some  of  the 
authors  in  Egypt,  no  less  than  the  causes,  why  one  makes  sometimes 
so  little  allusion  to  the  labors  of  another,  who  is  studying  the  same 
subjects,  treating  on  the  same  topics,  and  often  arriving,  independ- 
ently more  or  less  of  any  other,  at  the  same  results.  The  truth  is, 
the  pursuit  is  so  intensely  interesting,  the  merit  of  a discovery  so 
honorable  to  each  pioneer  in  hieroglyphical  literature,  that  we  cannot 
be  altogether  surprised  at,  though  we  may  deplore,  the  sometimes 
puerile  exclusiveness  of  the  writer.  A better  feeling  is  now  becom- 
ing  universal  and  it  would  be  easy  to  point  out  instances  of  honorable 
amendment. 

After  this  digression,  let  us  return  to  the  chronological  narrative. 

During  the  residence  of  the  French  and  Tuscan  expeditions  in 
Egypt,  Champollion  transmitted  occasional  letters  to  Paris,  to  keep 
aiive  the  interest  with  which  his  movements  were  watched.  These 
letters  were  afterwards  collected  into  a volume,  and  published  under 
the  title  of  “ Letters  written  from  Egypt  and  Nubia,  in  1828-29.” 
They  are  productions  worthy  of  so  great  a man,  possessing  intrinsic 
merit  and  utility ; but,  as  Champollion  wrote  them  in  haste,  before  a 
thorough  examination  had  enabled  him  to  form  positive  conclusions, 
there  are  frequent  errors  in  the  views  he  entertained  at  that  time, 
which  he  himself,  and  others  have  since  corrected. 

One  of  the  most  extraordinary  faculties  possessed  by  Champollion 
was  a power  of  comprehending,  at  a glance,  that  which  others  could 
only  arrive  at,  if  at  all,  by  long  and  arduous  study.  With  a felicitous 
Intuitiveness  of  conception  he.  could  define  the  meaning  of  an  obscure 
legend,  or  irreconcileable  tradition,  which  it  took  him  months  to  ex- 
plain in  writing,  to  the  comprehension  of  others  less  gifted  than  himself. 
It  was  in  consequence  of  this  singular  ability,  that  he  often  hazarded 
an  opinion,  which  was  either  rejected  by  the  learned,  or  considered 
problematical,  until  time  enabled  him  to  demonstrate  its  accuracy, 
and  it  became  almost  an  axiom.  In  fact,  this  gifted  Frenchman 
lived  so  much  in  advance  of  his  age  with  regard  to  Egyptian  subjects, 
that  many  startling  propositions,  put  forth  by  him,  and  which  death 
prevented  his  substantiating,  although  looked  upon  at  first  as  chimeri- 
cal, have  been  confirmed  by  the  subsequent  researches  of  his  dis- 
ciples ; and,  even  now,  there  are  some  points  unexplained,  that 
Champollion  sustained  fifteen  years  ago,  which  those  who  can  judge 
believe  will  hereafter  "be  amply  confirmed.  Like  other  men,  he  was 


not  infallible,  though  considering  the  abstruse  nature  of  his  studies, 
he  was  less  liable  to  err  than  his  fellows  : for  example  : 

On  leaving  France,  in  1828,  he  saw,  at  Aix,  a hieratic  scroll, 
celebrated  as  the  Sallier  papyrus ; wherein  he  declared  was  con. 
tained  an  an  ancient  Egyptian  epic  poem,  referring  to  the  conquests 
of  Ramses  3rd. — Sesoetris — over  the  Shelo  (a  Scythian  nation)— 
events  of  the  sixteenth  century,  B.  C. — and  geographically  located 
toward  Bactriana  or  Cappadocia.  Years  transpired — Champollion 
passed  away — the  very  existence  of  the  papyrus  was  denied — its 
production  challenged — and  it  was  even  insinuated  that  it  might  be 
a forgery  ! The  publication  of  a translation  of  this  identical  papyrus, 
by  Salvolini,  under  the  title  of  “ Campagne  de  Rhamses,”  within 
the  last  six  years,  has  silenced  the  cavillers. 

Again,  he  was  the  first  to  insist,  that  the  faces  of  the  Pharaohs  of 
Egypt,  sculptured  on  the  temples,  were  likenesses  of  the  persons 
represented  ; thus  carrying  back  the  full  use  of  portrait-sculpture  and 
painting  to  2000  B.  C.,  and  its  origin  into  the  night  of  time.  After 
fifteen  years  of  critical,  and  even  hostile  research,  no  doubt  is  now 
entertained  of  the  truth  of  his  assertion  ; and,  in  my  lecture  room 
the  fact  will  be  elucidated  by  abundant  illustrations,  &c. 

It  is  likewise  due  to  the  memory  of  this  illustrious  man  to  men. 
tion,  that,  in  his  “ Precis,”  lie  had  identified  and  produced  the  name 
of  Sheshonk,  the  Shishak  of  Scripture,  (who,  in  2nd  Chron.  xii.  1 — 
10 — 1st  Kings,  xiv.  25 — deposed  Rehoboam,)  in  the  following  hiero. 
glyphical  oval,  drawn  in  a plate  of  the  great  French  work,  as  found 
at  Karnac. 


' 

1 /wws 

i m u 

MI 

MI 

/VWvVS 

A M o 

—-SEDUCTION , 

Illllltlll 

N MaiSHeSHwN  K 
Beloved  of  Amon,  Sheshonk. 


Four  years  elapsed,  before  he  could  verify  this  fact  on  the  temple 
itself,  during  which  interval,  the  name  of  Sheshonk,  and  his  captive 
nations,  had  been  examined  times  out  of  number  by  other  hiero- 
glyphists,  and  the  names  of  all  the  prisoners  had  been  copied  by 
them,  and  published,  without  any  one  of  them  having  noticed  the 
extraordinary  biblical  corroboration  thence  to  be  deduced. 

On  his  passage  toward  Nubia,  Champollion  landed  for  an  hour  or 
two,  about  sunset,  to  snatch  a hasty  view  of  the  vast  halls  of  Kar. 
nac ; and  he  at  once  pointed  out  in  the  third  line  of  the  row  of 
sixty-three  prisoners  (each  typical  of  a nation,  city,  or  tribe,)  presented 
by  the  god  Amunra  to  Sheshonk,  the  following  figure  : 


Kah 


rtOTi. — The  turreted  oval  inclosing  the  name,  designates  a “ walled  city.” 
The  face  of  the  prisoner  is  not,  as  has  been  erroneously  and  hastily  con- 
jectured, a portrait  of  Rehoboam,  but  is  typical  of  an  Asiatic, 

The  eye  of  the  master  being  able  to  seize,  at  a glance,  that  which  his 
emulous  disciples,  or  competitors,  had  not  made  out  in  four  years, 
after  the  index  was  given  to  them  ! 

Laden  with  the  richest  archaeological  spoils  that  ever  left  Egypt, 
Champollion  with  his  party  returned  to  France  in  1829,  and  Rosellini 
with  his  associates  to  Tuscany.  They  had  labored  all  together ; and 
each  monumental  subject  had  been  faithfully  delineated  in  two  copies 
— the  one  by  the  French,  and  the  other  by  the  Italian  artists.  Both 
had  been  collated  with  each  other  on  the  spot,  and  compared  with 
the  originals  on  the  monuments,  by  the  great  masters  ; and  in  per- 
fect harmony  the  expeditions  had  fulfilled  their  mission. 


It  was  amicably  arranged,  between  Champollion  and  Rosellini, 
that  they  were  to  combine  their  labors  in  the  works  that  were  to  be 
issued  ; each,  however,  taking  separate  branches — Champollion  un. 
dertaking  the  illustration  of  the  “ Historical  Monuments,”  and  the 
grammar  of  the  hieroglyphic  language  of  Egypt — to  Rosellini  was 
assigned  the  task  of  elucidating,  by  the  “Civil  Monuments,”  the 
manners  and  customs  of  this  ancient  people,  and  the  formation  of  a 
hieroglyphical  dictionary.  Each  set  to  work  by  1830 ; but  Cham, 
pollion,  finding  his  end  approaching,  hastened  the  completion  of  his 
grammar.  Intense  application  had  prostrated  the  fragile  frame, 
which  enveloped  one  of  the  most  gifted  mental  capacities  ever 
vouchsafed  to  man.  The  French  government  gave  him,  in  the 
Royal  Academy,  a professor’s  chair,  created  for  him  alone  ; and  his 
address  to  his  pupils,  at  the  first  and  only  occasion  accorded  to  him 


10 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


by  Providence,  is  a masterpiece  of  eloquence,  sublimity  of  thought, 
and  classical  diction. 

He  finished  his  grammar  on  his  death-bed,  and  summoning  his 
friends  around  him,  he  delivered  the  autograph  into  their  custody, 
with  the  injunction  “ to  preserve  it  carefully,  'for,  I hope,  it  will  be 
my  visiting  card  to  posterity.”  A few  week^tafter,  in  Dec.  1832, 
Champollion  le  Jeune  was  followed  to  the  grave  by  the  noblest  men 
of  France  ; and  the  wpeath  of  “ Immortelles  ” hung  over  his  sepul- 
chre, symbolized  the  imperishable  fame  of  the  resuscitator  of  the 
earliest  records  mankind  has  hitherto  possessed. 

His  posthumous  works  were  put  to  press  at  the  expense  of  the 
nation.  The  third  and  last  part  of  his  grammar  of  hieroglyphics 
appeared  in  1841 ; while  the  great  work,  styled  “ Les  Monuments 
de  l’Egypte  et  de  la  Nubie,”  with  400  plates,  is  in  progress  of  distri- 
bution, if  not  already  completed.*  His  autograph  dictionary  is 
either  published,  or  nearly  so;  and  since  his  demise  has  precluded 
the  possibility  of  giving  to  the  public  exact  translations  of  the  plates, 
tccording  to  the  master’s  close  interpretation,  his  learned  brother, 
Champollion  Figeac,  erudite  in  ancient  literature,  and  conservator 
of  the  Royal  Library  at  Paris,  has  condensed  into  a volume,  that 
appeared  in  1810,  under  the  title  of  “ Ancient  Egypt,”  a history, 
whose  only  fault  is  its  brevity. 

On  the  demise  of  the  illustrious  Frenchman,  the  task  that  devolved 
on  his  Italian  colleague  was  herculean ; and  the  eyes  of  the  learned 
turned,  with  some  anxiety,  upon  the  only  surviving  representative 
of  Champollion,  the  erudite  Tuscan,  Professor  Ippolito  Rosellini,  of 
Pisa,  whose  classical  acquirements,  though  justly  celebrated,  might  not 
perhaps  have  been  sufficient  to  supply  the  vacuum  created  in  hiero- 
glyphical  archaeology.  In  1832,  the  Italian  scholar  produced  the 
first  volume  of  his  “ Monuments  of  Egypt  and  Nubia,”  announcing 
at  the  same  time,  that  he  should  undertake,  in  ten  volumes  of  text, 
and  four  hundred  plates,  to  furnish  complete  the  civil,  military,  reli- 
gious, and  monumental  history  of  early  Egypt.  Faithfully  and  tri- 
umphantly has  Professor  Rosellini  fulfilled  the  task  allotted  to  him  ; 
nor,  if  we  regret  that  Champollion  did  not  live  to  reap  the  full  meas- 
ure of  the  harvest,  can  we  refrain  from  acknowledging,  that  his  place 
has  been  filled  by  a man,  who,  with  the  qualities  and  attributes  of  a 
gentleman,  combines  the  profound  erudition  of  a universal  scholar. 
For  the  last  ten  years,  Professor  Rosellini  has  been  periodically  issuing 
the  text  and  plates  of  the  noblest  work,  which  the  researches  of  an 
individual  and  the  liberality  of  a government  have  ever  produced  ; 
nor  must  the  world,  in  awarding  the  laurel  wreath  to  the  professor, 
forget,  that  he  owes  his  honorable  position,  as  we  do  the  astonishing 
results  themselves,  to  the  patronage  of  Leopold,  grand  duke  of 
Tuscany. 

It  was  in  1832,  that  the  greatest  expiring  effort  was  made  to  stem 
the  hieroglyphical  success  of  Champollion,  when  the  immortal  paleo- 
grapher was  already  enveloped  in  his  winding  sheet ; and  Klaproth 
lias  the  unenviable  merit  of  recording  his  own  learned  perverseness 
in  the  paths  of  error.  He  published  a “critical  examination  of  the 
labors  of  the  late  Monsieur  Champollion,  upon  hieroglyphics ; ” 
whereby  he  fancied,  as  did  some  of  his  readers,  that  by  ingenious 
antitheses,  and  not  a few  mistatements,  he  had  rendered  all  these 
researches  in  the  new  school  of  interpretation  abortive.  Those,  who 
are  acquainted  with  his  work  alone,  may  perhaps  give  it  a weight  it 
does  not  deserve. 

There  have  been  a few  other  insignificant  attempts,  in  England 
and  elsewhere,  to  substitute  untenable  absurdities,  and  among  them 
are  to  be  included  those  endeavors  to  translate  hieroglyphics  by 
Hebrew  alone,  in  the  room  of  Champollion’s  system  ; but  their  exis- 
tence was  ephemeral.  And,  while  the  Hierologist,  in  1843,  looks 
down  from  his  tower  of  strength  on  the  last  fugitives  of  the  once 
tremendous  hostile  phalanx,  he  cheerfully  accords  to  the  Russian 
mystagogue  (who,  of  course,  has  never  been  in  Egypt,)  Monsieur  de 
Goulianoff,  (upon  the  strength  of  his  ponderous  tomes  on  “ L’Ar- 
chseologie  Egyptienne,”  which  appeared  in  1839,)  the  exclusive  honor 
of  being,  save  in  his  undeniable  profundity  of  research,  a century  be- 
hind the  age.  We  can  scarcely  suppose,  that  any  future  scholar 
will  peril  his  reputation  by  opposition  to  the  general  principles  of 
Champollion’s  science  ; and  may  therefore  conclude  that  no  true 
savan  will  imitate  Boabdil,  when,  with  weeping  eyes  and  aching 
heart,  he  cast  his  last  lingering  look  on  the  receding  Alhambra,  and 
with  him  utter  “ l’ultimo  sospiro  del  Moro” — the  last  sigh  of  the 
Moor. 

But  there  were  some  learned  men  who,  fully  conceding  to  Cham- 
pollion’s system  the  merit  of  translation,  were  led,  by  their  knowledge 
of  the  Coptic  tongue,  to  doubt  the  correctness  of  a theory  which  main- 
tained, “ that  a hieroglyphical  text  is  the  Coptic  language  written  in 
(symbolic,  figurative  and  phonetic)  hieroglyphics,  instead  of  in  the 
ordinary  Coptic  letters ; or  otherwise  in  the  Greek  character,  with 
the  addition  of  half  a dozen  signs  taken  from  the  enchorial  or  de- 
motic texts.”  On  the  publication  of  the  first  part  of  the  “Grammaire 
Egyptienne,”  it  was  demonstrated,  that,  although  the  translation  of 
a hieroglyphical  text  into  French  may  be  perfectly  correct ; yet,  that 
the  pi  tor  reduction,  or  transposition,  of  each  hieroglyphic  sign  into 
a corresponding  Coptic  letter,  or  word,  did  not  therefore  constitute 
the  Coptic,  as  known  to  us  by  the  translations  of  the  Bible,  homilies, 
and  liturgies,  which  in  that  language  have  been  preserved  to  us. 


This  view  was  sustained,  with  great  force  of  argument,  by  the  learned 
Dujardin  in  1835,  and  by  others  on  the  Continent,  as  by  Dr.  Henry 
Tattam  in  England.  It  became  very  important  to  extend  the  limited 
knowledge  hitherto  possessed  of  that  dead  language  in  Europe,  and 
Mons.  Dujardin  was  sent,  by  the  enlightened  French  government,  to 
Egypt ; where  he  died,  before  he  had  completed  his  researches  and 
his  collection  of  manuscripts,  but  not  before  be  had  fully  acknow- 
ledged, that,  in  his  criticisms  on  Champollion,  he  had  been  somewhat 
premature.  In  1838,  Dr.  Henry  Tattam  visited  Egypt,  with  similar 
views,  and  obtained  a great  accession  of  Coptic  MSS.;  and,  what 
was  infinitely  more  valuable,  the  transcript  of  a great  Coptic  and 
Arabic  lexicon,  belonging  to  the  Copt  patriarch,  at  Cairo ; by  means 
of  these  aids  this  profound  scholar  has  extended  his  Coptic  dictionary 
by  several  thousand  words.  Professor  Peyron  issued,  in  due  course, 
a most  useful  Coptic  dictionary,  more  peculiarly  destined  to  facilitate 
hieroglyphical  interpretations  than  any  previous  lexicographer  had 
attempted.  Other  learned  Coptic  students,  Rosellini,  Leipsius,  Birch, 
&c.,  have  given  important  developments  to  the  deciphering  of  Egyp- 
tian legends,  of  which  the  hieroglyphic -and  hieratic  forms  may  now 
be  said  to  be  almost  entirely  recovered ; but  owing  mainly  to  the 
paucity  of  documents,  the  progress  in  the  demotic  text,  has  not  yet 
been  as  complete.  Dr.  Leipsius’  “ Letter  on  the  hieroglyphic  alpha- 
bet,” 1836,  is  a wonderful  analysis  of  this  complex  system  ; and 
when  the  French  and  Italian  hieroglyphical  dictionaries,  and  the 
thorough  critical  translation  of  the  mighty  papyrus,  at  Turin,  the 
“Ritual  of  the  Dead,”*  which  we  may  look  for  within  a couple  of 
years,  shall  have  been  published,  it  will  then  be  in  the  power  of  any 
one,  whose  acquirements  in  modern  and  ancient  classics  are  mode- 
rately extensive,  to  verify  after  more  or  less  study,  the  translations 
afforded  by  hierological  professors. 

While  the  governments  of  France  and  Tuscany,  with  such  wisdom 
and  liberality,  have  fostered  the  new  school  of  Egyptian  literature  ; 
and  while,  it  must  be  allowed,  the  Continental  colleges  have  furnished 
the  masters  of  the  still  incipient  hieroglyphical  science,  there  are 
some  private  individuals  in  England,  who  not  only  have  kept  pace 
with  Continental  progress,  but,  each  in  his  sphere  of  action,  has  con- 
tributed wonderfully  to  unveil  to  us  the  glories  of  Pharaonic  epochs, 
and  is  entitled  to  the  warmest  tribute  of  applause. 

First  on  the  catalogue  stands  Sir  J.  Gardner  Wilkinson,  whose 
universality  of  erudition,  and  thorough  acquaintance  with  ancient 
and  modern  Egypt,  are  recognized  by  all  who  knew  his  former  labors, 
and  are  attested  by  his  “ Topography  of  Thebes;”  London,  1835 — 
and  by  the  “ Manners  and  Customs  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians  ;”  first 
and  second  series  ; London,  1837,  and  1841.  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson 
spent  last  winter  again  in  Egypt;  and  is  preparing  other  evidences 
of  his  zeal  in  hieroglyphical  researches.  And,  while  the  name  of 
Burton  is  prominent  in  the  still  circumscribed  but  very  learned  array 
of  English  hieroglyphical  laborers,  that  of  Birch  promises  to  take 
rank  with  Champollion,  Rosellini,  Leipsius  and  Wilkinson,  in  Egyp- 
tian literature. 

In  1835,  Hoskins  published  his  valuable  “ Travels  in  Ethiopia.” 
He  corrected  many  of  the  inadvertencies  of  Cailleaud  ; and  by  the 
production  of  a volume  of  undeniable  facts,  has  enabled  us  to  draw 
conclusions  on  ancient  Meroe,  different,  as  will  be  shown,  from  some 
of  those  deduced  by  the  author  himself.  The  splendid  folios  of 
Colonel  Howard  Vyse  record  his  munificent  promotion  of  scientific 
researches;  and  his  costly  labors  at  the  pyramids  have  opened  to  our 
astounded  contemplation  views  of  an  unquestionable  antiquity,  sur- 
passing, as  I shall  explain,  all  previous  expectation.  Uttier  works  are 
issuing  from  the  Continental  and  English  press,  which  will  add  infi- 
nitely to  our  knowledge,  and  to  the  fame  of  their  authors. 

In  short,  the  little  spring  of  pure  water  which  first  bubbled  from 
the  Rosetta  Stone,  has,  in  23  years,  now  swoln  into  a mighty  flood ; 
overwhelming  all  opposition  ; sweeping  aside  or  carrying  in  its  surges, 
those  whose  inclination  would  induce  them  to^tem  its  force  ; and; 
at  the  present  hour,  we  know  more  of  positive  Egyptian  history  and 
of  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  Egypt,  ages  previous  to  the  patriarch 
Abraham,  than  on  many  subjects  we  can  assert  of  our  acquaintance 
with  England  before  Alfred  the  Great,  or  with  France  before  Char- 
lemagne ! 

In  addition  to  all  these  investigations,  prosecuted  in  France,  in 
Italy,  and  in  England  ; Prussia  has  granted  her  generous  aid  in  favor 
of  the  good  cause,  by  decreeing  that  a large  sum  should  be  placed  at 
the  disposal  of  Dr.  Leipsius,  who,  with  seven  scientific  gentlemen, 
is  now  in  Egypt,  there  to  retrace  the  steps  of  his  predecessors,  over 
the  sacred  ground  hallowed  by  countless  generations  of  antiquity. 
At  Leyden,  Dr.  Leentans  ; and  some  scholars  in  Holland  ; at  Turin, 
Berlin,  Rome,  and  Vienna,  other  consumers  of  the  midnight  oil  are 
emulating  the  students  of  Paris,  Florence,  and  London.  In  Cairo, 
our  “ Egyptian  Society”  boasts  (among  its  members)  of  cooperators 
in  the  reconstruction  of  the  venerable  edifice,  whose  works  will,  ere 
long,  establish  their  claims  to  a front  rank : and  it  is  owing  to  the 
advantages  afforded  to  me  by  an  institution,  of  which  I stand  second 
on  the  list  of  founders,  that  I am  enabled  to  present  here  in  a succinct, 
but,  I believe,  a correct  view  of  the  actual  position  of  Egyptian  hie. 


’Since  tin's  was  written,  I have  received  from  this  enthusiastic  German  Egyptologist, 
who  is  now  in  Egypt,  a catalogue  of  his  various  works,  and  -find  that  he  translated 
the  Ritual  into  German,  in  l&ll ! It  is  probable,  that  this  papyrus  will  form  the  fina- 
portion  of  Roselini’s  work. 


* 1 have  seen  all  but  the  40th,  or  final  number. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


11 


roglyphical  archaeology,  no  less  than  some  insight  into  the  not  gene- 
rally known  results  of  these  glorious  researches. 

Having  now  given  a sketch  of  the  labors  of  European  students  in 
hieroglyphical  literature,  and  of  the  personal  account  of  the  Egypto- 
logists of  the  Champollion  school,  I will  hazard  the  observation,  that 
the  narrative  is  new  to  most  of  those  who  read  it  in  America  ; and 
if  I can  convince  them  of  the  reality  of  the  positions  advanced,  their 
conviction  will  be  accompanied  by  a feeling  of  surprise,  that  they 
have  hitherto  heard  so  little  on  these  subjects. 

I do  not  presume  to  speculate  much  upon  the  causes,  that  have 
deprived  America  of  the  light  (I  speak  generally)  which,  emanating 
from  mouldering  Egypt,  is  pouring  like  a flood  over  Europe.  One 
of  the  main  causes  seems  to  me  to  be,  that,  as  most  of  the  best  works 
are  published  in  foreign  languages,  and  many  at  large  cost,  and  that 
as  their  appearance  “en  masse,”  dates  back  not  much  further 
than  1836,  sufficient  interval  has  not  yet  elapsed,  for  the  adequate 
promulgation  of  the  new  science  in  this  country,  beyond  what  may  be 
gleaned  from  the  learned  works  of  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson  ; whose  last 
production  made  its  appearance  in  1841.  Another  cause  may  be  in 
the  associations  connected  with  the  very  name  of  Egypt — a land  of 
mystery — for  2000  years  covered  with  a veil  of  darkness  ; and,  were 
1 not  half  an  Egyptian  myself,  it  would  seem  presumption  in  me  to 
assert  (what,  by  the  way,  is  very  easily  sustained,)  that  till  lately, 
common  sense  has  had  very  little  to  do  with  the  discussions  of  the 
literati  of  the  Continent,  of  England,  and  of  the  United  States,  upon 
subjects  connected  with  that  mystified  country — and  this  as  much 
upon  its  modern,  as  upon  its  ancient  state.  Meanwhile,  I need  only 
refer  to  the  works  published  in  all  countries,  save  by  the  genuine 
hierological  school  on  ancient,  and  by  Mr.  Lane  on  modern  Egypt, 
for  a series  of  conflicting  statements,  that  baffle  the  most  conscientious 
and  laborious  inquirers  after  truth. 

This  is  the  first  time  that,  in  any  country,  a series  of  popular  lec- 
tures and  essays  has  been  projected,  for  the  familiar  elucidation  of 
topics  hitherto  discussed  only  by  the  learned ; though  far  be  it  from 
me  to  pretend  to  the  latter  character.  The  very  term  hieroglyphics 
is  a common  bye-word  in  our  tongue,  to  designate  anything  incom- 
prehensible ! and,  if  I venture  to  show,  that  the  apprehended  unin- 
telligibility of  Egyptian  hieroglyphics  is,  in  1843,  an  illusion,  I trust 
that  the  truth,  and  the  undeniable  importance  of  the  subjects  handled, 
will  not  be  doubted,  in  consequence  of  the  insufficiency  of  my  ex- 
planations ; nor  the  unintentional  errors  of  the  writer  be  a reason 
for  withholding  from  the  labors  of  the  Champollion  school  the  atten- 
tion they  so  imperiously  demand. 

Yet,  if  America  has  hitherto  been  quiescent,  and  tardy  in  further- 
ing the  progress  of  Egyptian  developments,  it  will  be  satisfactory  to 
her  people  to  be  assured,  that  there  is  one  American  savan  who,  at  a 
bound,  will  carry  a very  important  branch  of  these  sciences  to  unan- 
ticipated and  glorious  results.  The  name  of  Dr.  Samuel  George 
Morton,  vice-president  of  the  “Academy  of  Natural  Sciences”  at 
Philadelphia,  is  already  associated  with  profound  researches  into  the 
primeval  history  of  man  on  this  continent ; and  no  student  of  anthro- 
pology but  has  been  enlightened  by  his  “ Crania  Americana.”  For- 
tuitous circumstances,  consequent  on  his  own  instigation,  have 
enabled  me  to  place  before  Dr.  Morton  a mass  of  crude  materials, 
» which  form  the  basis  of  the  work,  now  preparing  for  the  press,  under 
the  title  of  “ Crania  yEgyptiaca.”  When,  in  the  course  of  these  chap- 
ters, I approach  the  subject  of  ancient  ethnology,  as  deducible  from 
the  monuments  of  Egypt,  it  will  be  seen  what  an  immense  light  is,  for 
the  first  time,  thrown  on  the  origin  of  the  ancient  Egyptian  race  by 
Dr.  Morton’s  researches;  and,  in  the  interim,  I seize  this  opportunity 
to  express  my  acknowledgments  for  the  varied  instruction  I have  de- 
rived from  our  intercourse,  no  less  than  my  gratitude  for  the  manifold 
kindnesses  received  at  his  hands. 

• In  treating  on  Egyptian  subjects,  it  behoves  me,  as  it  is  likewise 
due  to  my  valued  friend,  Mr.  F.  Catherwood,  to  state,  that  I am  aware 
of  his  having  preceded  me.  Having  had  the  pleasure  of  forming, 
years  ago,  at  Cairo,  those  friendly  relations  with  him  that  continue 
to  the  present  hour,  there  are  none  more  able  than  myself  to  appre- 
ciate his  intimate  acquaintance  with  that  ancient  country ; and,  in 
various  branches  of  study  I am  happy  to  acknowledge  his  superior 
attainments.  Mr.  Catherwood’s  lectures  embraced  a much  wider 
field  of  observation  than  my  own  dissertations,  as  he  could  add  his 
researches  in  other  Eastern  countries — particularly  in  Palestine — to 
those  he  prosecuted  for  several  years  in  Egypt.  My  illustrations  of 
antiquity  are  confined  to  the  Valley  of  the  Nile.  At  the  time  when 
Mr.  Catherwood  lectured  on  Egypt,  the  bulk  of  the  works  from  which 
I have  culled  the  matters  whereon  I intend  to  descant,  had  not  issued 
from  the  press;  and  none,  I may  say,  had  reached  this  country.  Any 
difference,  therci:e«,  in  our  respective  Egyptian  views,  is  attributable 
to  these  circumstances,  rather  than  to  any  deficiency  on  Mr.  Cather- 
wood’s part  at  the  time  of  his  lectures.  Since  those  days,  Mr.  Cather- 
wood’s attention  has  been  turned  to  a distinct,  and  still  more  arduous 
field  of  antiquarian  investigation  ; and  the  long-buried  and  almost 
incredible  monumental  remains  in  Central  America,  exhumed  with 
unlooked-for  and  extraordinary  success  by  Mr.  John  L.  Stephens, 
have  given  to  Mr.  Catherwood  such  opportunities  for  distinguishing 
nimself,  that,  in  treating  on  ancient  Egypt,  I have  his  assurances 
that  I am  not  trenching  upon  his  interests  or  pursuits. 

I was  in  this  country  at  the  time  of  Mr.  Buckingham’s  arrival,  and 


am  acquainted  with  his  literary  works.  Not  having  attended  nt* 
lectures,  I know  them  only  from  hearsay,  through  the  periodical  press, 
or  from  some  of  his  own  publications.  No  comparison  can  consist- 
ently be  instituted  between  things  wherein  there  exists  no  parity  ; 
and,  as  I am  particularly  desirous  that  my  subjects,  opinions,  acquire, 
ments,  intentions,  le^fures,  and  principles,  should  be  considered 
totally  distinct  from  those  of  Mr.  Buckingham,  it  would  be  unbe 
coming,  as  well  as  unnecessary,  to  say  more  on  this  head. 

It  has  been  already  casually  stated,  that  I have  been  a sojourner 
in  the  land  of  Egypt,  for  the  greater  part  of  twenty-three  years. 
Congenial  tastes  have,  since  my  boyhood,  induced  me,  as  often  as 
opportunities  occurred,  to  keep  pace  with  the  writings  of  eminent 
travellers  ; while,  with  most  of  those  who  have  visited  Egypt,  and 
especially  with  those  who  followed  out  the  new  discoveries,  I have 
been  on  terms  of  social  intimacy,  and  with  many  I am  in  correspond, 
ence.  A chequered,  and  not  an  idle  life,  enables  me  to  speak  on 
many  subjects  from  personal  experience  and  long-practiced  know 
ledge — and  for  topographical  acquaintance  with  that  country,  I can 
say,  that  there  is  little  space  on  either  side  of  the  Nile,  from  the  sea 
beach  to  the  second  Cataract,  with  which  my  sporting  habits  have 
not  rendered  me  familiar.  In  1839,  having  resolved  to  absent  myself 
for  an  indefinite  period,  from  the  land  of  my  adoption,  I took  advan 
tage  of  nearly  two  years’  leisure  to  ascertain  the  amount  of  informa- 
tion gleaned,  by  the  Champollion  school,  on  early  Egyptian  history 
I indulged  my  migrating  propensities  by  a visit  to  Upper  Egypt  and 
Nubia,  as  well  as  by  various  dromedary  excursions  into  the  eastern 
and  western  deserts  adjacent  to  Cairo.  My  sedentary  hours  were 
occupied  in  studying  the  works  whence  I derive  such  antiquarian 
information  as  I possess,  or  in  discussing  relative  questions  with  tht 
many  talented  men  and  erudite  scholars  who  adorned  our  Egypto 
European  community. 

I pretend  to  no  discoveries  of  my  own.  I have  availed  myself  of 
the  productions  of  the  learned  in  Egyptian  archteology,  that  are,  ot 
have  been,  within  my  reach.  I have  adopted  all  of  them  in  different 
proportions.  I frequently  use  the  language  of  some  ; have  taken 
ideas  from  all  ; and  after  this  avowal,  trust  that  I shall  escape  the 
charge  of  plagiarism  ; for  who,  in  1843,  can  treat  of  a country  which, 
for  two  thousand  three  hundred  years,  has  occupied  the  pens  and  the 
more  or  less  critical  examinations  of  the  learned  of  every  ancient 
and  modern  nation,  without  availing  himself  of  the  information  con 
tained  in  the  published  labors  of  his  predecessors  ? 

The  only  power  to  which  I venture  to  lay  claim,  is  that  of  dis- 
crimination in  the  choice  of  my  authorities ; and,  it  will  be  found, 
that,  while  making  use  of  the  some  facts  to  be  met  with  in  the  works 
of  the  Champollions,  Roseilini,  Wilkinson,  &c.,  I sometimes  attempt 
to  assign  reasons  differing  from  theirs,  or  for  more  extensive  con 
elusions. 

During  a stay  of  some  months  in  the  year  1841,  in  England,  I 
thought  that  if  I returned  to  America,  I should  be  able  to  occupy  an 
interval  of  time,  profitably  to  myself,  and  perhaps  advantageously  to 
others,  as  a lecturer  on  early  Egyptian  subjects.  A long  sea  voyage 
threw  me  out  of  the  season  ; and  when  I sought  in  American  libra- 
ries for  some  of  the  great  works  of  the  New  School,  I found,  to  my 
extreme  regret,  that  the  most  important  were  wanting. 

I had  therefore  valid  grounds  for  supposing  that,  to  the  majority 
of  those  I might  address,  the  manner  of  elucidating  hieroglyphical 
arcana,  no  less  than  many  of  the  practical  results  themselves,  would 
at  least  present  the  charm  of  novelty  ; but,  in  the  absence  of  indis- 
putable facsimiles  of  Egyptian  legends  and  monumental  subjects,  it 
was  impossible  to  prepare  any  satisfactory  pictorial  illustrations. 

It  is  with  sincere  pleasure,  that  I now  express  my  acknowledge- 
ments to  my  valued  friend,  R.  K.  Haight,  Esq.,  of  New-York, 
whose  friendship  I acquired  some  years  ago  in  Egypt,  for  supplying, 
independently  of  his  other  varied  kindnesses,  these  deficiencies  of 
books,  by  procuring  from  Europe  “ I Monumenti  dell  ’Egitto  e della 
Nubia,”  of  Professor  Roseilini.  This  invaluable  work,  the  first 
and  the  only  copy  (complete  as  far  as  it  has  hitherto  appeared)  exist- 
ing in  the  United  States,  has  been  lent  to  me  by  Mr.  H.,  and  is  now 
in  my  possession.  From  this  work,  with  occasional  extracts  from 
others,  the  illustrations  that  embellish  my  oral  lectures  have  been 
copied,  with  scrupulous  fidelity,  by  Philadelphian  artists.  The  only  de- 
viation from  the  originals  lies  in  the  requisite  enlargement  of  the  copies ; 
but  beyond  this,  in  my  pictorial  representations,  no  departure  in  color, 
or  in  anything  else,  has  been  made  from  the  original  plates. 

Finally  : if  my  readers  will  kindly  take  into  consideration,  that 
my  life  has  been  spent,  and  my  exertions,  till  I landed  in  New-York 
in  January,  1842,  have  been  actively  directed  in  multifarious  pur- 
suits, totally  distinct  in  nature  from  the  position  I now  occupy  before 
them,  I trust  they  will  look  with  indulgence  on  the  attempt  made  to 
acquit  myself  of  the  agreeable,  but  arduous  task  before  me,  rather 
than  at  the  deficiencies  proceeding  from  my  own  want  of  ability. 


CHAPTER  SECOND. 

The  origin  of  the  Art  of  Writing  loses  itself  among  the  nebulou' 
periods  of  man’s  primeval  history.  With  the  original  ethnographic 
varieties  of  the  human  species,  the  primitive  geographical  distribu. 
tion  of  mankind,  the  patriarchal  fountains  of  a once  pure  religion. 


12 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


and  the  earliest  sources  of  the  diversity  of  language,  must  be  asso- 
ciated the  first  developments  of  that  art,  which,  from  the  remotest 
periods,  has  enabled  man  to  record  his  history,  and  to  overcome  space 
nnd  time  in  the  transmission  of  his  thoughts. 

And  it  must  be  allowed,  that  on  all  these  subjects,  however  success- 
fully the  efforts  of  antiquaries,  in  the  last  quai^Er  of  a century,  have 
enlightened  us  with  unexpected  and  almost  unhoped-for  glimpses  of 
the  truth  ; yet,  beyond  a certain  epoch,  of  which  the  antiquity  is 
scarcely  definable,  their  lights  fail  us ; and  the  origin  of  letters,  with 
n thousand  accompanying  questions,  is  lost  in  the  night  of  time  ; 
wherein,  to  use  the  beautiful  words  of  Bryant,  “ These  subjects  as- 
sume the  fantastic  forms  of  an  evening  cloud  ; we  seem  to  descry 
castles,  and  mountains,  and  gigantic  appearances,  but,  while  we 
gaze,  the  forms  die  away,  and  are  soon  lost  in  gloom  and  uncertainty.” 
All  the  progress  that  modern  researches  have,  as  yet,  achieved,  is  to 
carry  back  the  positive  epoch  of  the  absolute  existence  of  writing, 
rather  than  to  have  lifted  the  veil,  which  conceals  its  primeval  origin. 
The  lamp  of  modern  inquiry  has  illumined  our  pathway,  and  ex- 
tended our  knowledge  a few  hundred  years  beyond  the  point  reached 
by  our  forefathers.  Here  and  there,  its  projectile  ray  is  through  the 
gloom  reflected,  by  some  diamond  imbedded  in  the  distant  rock  ; 
but  the  shadows  of  the  cavern  flit  before  our  eyes,  and  the  fire-damp 
warns  us  of  the  danger  of  advance. 

Whether  the  art  of  writing  was  a consequence  of  the  necessities 
of  human  society,  the  result  of  a progress  from  the  rude  savage  to 
tne  civilized  man,  can  be  looked  upon  now-a-days  only  as  a curious 
speculation.  Nor  when  we  shall  take  into  consideration,  in  a sub- 
sequent chapter,  the  subject  of  Chronology,  can  this  hypothesis  be 
consistently  sustained,  without  overthrowing  the  entire  fabric  of 
Scriptural  history  ; because,  I trust,  that  I shall  be  able  to  demon, 
strate,  from  the  positive  records  of  Egypt,  that  if  to  the  already 
almost  biblically-irreconcileable  antiquity,  imperiously  required  for  the 
monuments  still  erect  in  that  country,  we  add  the  countless  ages  that 
would  be  required,  before  the  theoretical  primitive  Savage  could 
conceive,  much  less  execute,  such  an  eternal  edifice  as  one  pyramid, 
we  must  fall  back  upon  geological,  and  cease  to  define  his  progress 
by  chronological  periods.  Far  less  inconsistent  with  the  refinement 
in  arts  and  sciences,  that  we  encounter  at  the  remotest  epoch  of 
Egyptian  history,  and  infinitely  more  in  accordance  is  it  with  the 
Sacred  Word,  to  class  the  art  of  writing  among  those  primeval,  if 
not  antediluvian,  revelations  to  man,  of  which  we  possess  much  col- 
lateral evidence  ; although  of  the  act  we  have  no  positive  record, 
and  of  the  era  we  are  utterly  uncertain. 

Until  the  discoveries  of  Champollion  enabled  us  to  produce  “ writ- 
ings,” “ sculptured  letters,”  and  “ painted  alphabetic  signs,”  coeval 
with  generations,  that  in  the  days  of  the  Patriarch  Abraham  had  long 
ceased  to  exist,  not  only  has  writing  been  traced  to  the  Hebrews, 
Chinese,  Phoenicians,  Chaldeans,  Hindoos,  or  Egyptians,  according 
to  the  respective  theories  of  the  scholar,  his  prejudices  and  partiali- 
ties ; but,  it  was  maintained  by  some  of  the  learned,  that  we  owe  the 
art  of  writing  to  Moses,  the  Hebrew  Lawgiver;  and  that  the  Tablets 
of  stone,  in  the  wilderness  of  Sinai,  are  the  first  authentic  evidence 
we  possess  of  early  alphabetic  writing ; whence  the  conclusion 
would  inevitably  follow,  that  this  inestimable  blessing  had  been  denied 
to  man,  until  the  15th  century  before  the  Christian  era ! 

That  such  an  hypothesis  is  fallacious,  may  be  shown  by  Scripture 
itself ; even  were  we  deprived  of  the  unanswerable  proofs  to  be 
gleaned  from  Gentile  records.  In  Gen.  v.  1st — “ This  is  the  booh  of 
the  generations  of  Adam” — reference  is  made  to  the  book  of  gene, 
alogy;  whence  it  irresistibly  follows,  that  writing  must  have  been  in 
use  among  the  antediluvian  patriarchs ; and,  under  the  view  that 
writing  was  a divine  revelation,  the  same  Almighty  power  that,  ac- 
cording to  the  preceding  proposition,  instructed  Moses,  could  have 
equally  vouchsafed  a similar  inspiration  to  any  patriarch  from  Adam 
to  Noah  ; nor  does  it  seem  consistent  with  the  merciful  dispensation 
which  preserved  Noah’3  family  through  the  grand  cataclysm,  and 
had  condescended,  according  to  the  biblical  record,  to  teach  him 
those  multitudinous  arts  indispensably  requisite  to  the  construction 
of  a vessel  destined  to  pass  uninjured  through  the  tempests  of  the 
deluge,  that  the  Almighty,  by  withholding  the  art  of  writing,  should 
have  left  the  account  of  antediluvian  events  to  the  vicissitudes  of 
oral  tradition,  or  denied  to  Noah’s  holy  family  the  practice  of  that 
art,  which,  it  is  maintained,  was  conceded  first  to  Moses. 

But  there  are  other  arguments,  that  confirm  the  existence  of  the 
art  of  writing  in  antediluvian  epochs  (whether  by  symbols  or  by 
alphabetic  signs,)  to  be  gathered  from  a critical  examination  of  the 
Pentateuch  ; and,  while  I would  casually  observe,  that  “ Moses  was 
learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians” — Acts  vii.  22 — I will 
point  out  some  of  the  reasons  for  this  assertion. 

The  five  books  of  Moses*  carry  with  them  internal  evidence,  not 
of  one  sole,  connected,  and  original  composition,  but  of  a compila- 
tion, by  an  inspired  writer,  from  earlier  annals.  “ The  genealogical 
tables  and  family  records  of  various  tribes,  that  are  found  embodied 
in  the  Pentateuch,  bear  the  appearance  of  documents  copied  from 
written  archives.  They  display  no  trait  which  might  lead  us  to 

* Vide  Trichord’s  Egyptian  Mythology— Wiseman’*  Lecture*— and  “ Hebrew  Cha 
racier*  uerived  trom  Hieroglyphics.”  by  John  Lamb,  J).D..  Master  of  Corpus  C.  Col- 
lege, Cambridge— London,  1836.  References  will  therein  be  found  to  the  worKs,  caiefly 
ef  Herman  liebraica!  students,  en  which  the  above  assertions  are  grounded. 


ascribe  their  production  to  the  dictates  of  immediate  revelation,  nor 
are  we  anywhere  informed  that  such  in  reality  was  their  origin.  We 
are  aware  that  similar  documents  were  constructed  by  the  inspired 
writers  of  the  Gospels,  from  national  archives  or  family  memorials.’ 

The  obvious  presumption  is,  that  Moses  obtained  records  of  a 
like  description  from  similar  sources,  unless  it  can  be  shown  that  no 
such  means  were  in  existence  at  the  time.  We  have  the  authority 
of  Genesis  v.,  1,  for  asserting  the  existence  of  a book  of  genealogies 
in  the  time  of  Noah;  and  a city,  mentioned  by  Joshua,  was  named 
in  Hebrew,  “ Kirjath  Sefer” — the  City  of  Letters.  It  is  impossible 
to  prove  that  letters  were  unknown  before  Moses  ; and  the  Hebrews 
of  his  day  appear  even  to  have  had  two  distinct  modes  of  writing; 
the  characters  of  which,  in  one  case,  were  alphabetic,  and  in  the 
other  symbolic.  The  inscription  on  the  Ephod  itself  is  said — Exodus 
xxviii.,  36 — to  have  been  written  in  characters  “ like  the  engravings 
of  a signet;’’  and  the  original  type  of  the  sacred  Urim  and  Thux- 
mim  was,  as  will  hereafter  be  shown,  derived  from  an  earlier  combi- 
nation of  emblems,  possibly  Egyptian.  We  have,  therefore,  many 
reasons  to  believe  that  the  use  of  letters,  and  the  practice  of  preserving 
chronicles  and  genealogies,  were  known  to  the  Hebrews  long  before 
Moses  : while,  in  any  case,  if  an  attempt  were  made,  in  violation  of 
all  legitimate  inferences,  to  draw  attestation  from  Holy  Writ,  and  it 
were  proved  that,  until  the  time  of  Moses,  the  Jews  were  unable  to 
preserve  their  national  annals  save  by  oral  tradition,  it  would,  in  the 
present  advanced  state  of  positive  knowledge  in  the  history  of  contem- 
porary Gentile  nations  (who,  ages  anterior  to  Moses,  had  authentic 
and  written  chronicles,)  show  that  the  Israelites  were,  till  the  15th  cen- 
tury before  Christ,  more  ignorant  than  any  great  people  of  antiquity 
— a position  which,  I presume,  would  be  as  detrimental  to  Scrip- 
tural authenticity,  as,  in  truth,  it  would  be  contrary  to  reason  and 
to  fact. 

But  it  has  been  demonstrated,  by  a succession  of  eminent  scholars, 
since  the  year  1753,  that  a critical  examination  of  the  Hebrew  text 
of  Genesis  establishes  the  truth  of  the  assertion,  that  this  book  con- 
tains several  original  records ; each  bearing  on  its  face  the  strongest 
marks  of  authenticity,  and  of  long  anterior  antiquity,  which  have 
been  brought  together  by  the  hand  of  Moses.  Genesis  contains 
repetitions  and  double  narratives  of  the  same  events — distinguished 
by  different  characteristics  of  style,  distinctly  marked.  Two  histo- 
ries are  clearly  defined  in  the  Hebrew  text : in  one,  the  Deity  is 
styled  Elodim;  and  in  the  other,  Jehovah  ; besides  an  infinitude  of 
differences  in  relative  style,  that  leave  no  doubt,  on  the  mind  of  the 
scholastic  investigator,  in  regard  to  the  diversity  of  the  records  which 
chronicle  the  same  event. 

Again,  the  Book  of  Job  is,  by  learned  theologians,  said  not  to  be 
a Hebrew  production ; though  accepted,  and  authenticated,  by  the 
lawgiver  of  Israel.  Job  lived  in  the  land  of  Uz — Aramanea — of 
which  Edom  was  a district,  and  Arabia  our  modern  designation 
Job  was  not  a Hebrew  of  the  Hebrews,  but  an  Arabian;  probably 
of  Joktan’s  race  : and,  according  to  Hales,  his  probable  epoch  was 
about  2337  B.  C. ; that  is,  from  600  to  800  years  before  Moses.  This 
chronological  view  is  further  corroborated  by  the  following  facts 
with  regard  to  Eliphaz,  the  Temanite,  one  of  Job’s  friends.  In  Ge- 
nesis xxxvi.,  4,  10,  and  in  I.  Chronicles  i.,  35,  we  learn  that  Eliphaz 
was  Esau’s  eldest  son.  Now,  if  this  Eliphaz  be  identified  with  the 
Eliphaz  in  Job,  it  is  manifest  that  Job,  being  contemporary  with  Eli- 
phaz, must  have  preceded  Moses  by  some  centuries  : and  that  he  is 
thus  identified  is  fairly  inferrible ; first,  from  the  fact  that  the  name  of 
Eliphaz  occurs  nowhere  in  the  Bible,  but  in  the  Book  ot  Jod  and  in 
the  chapters  above  cited  ; and  second,  from  Eliphaz  being  called  the 
Temanite,  since  we  learn  from  Jeremiah  xlix.,  7,  20,  that  Teman 
was  a province  or  portion  of  Edom,  the  country  of  Esau.  Job  (in 
xix.,  23)  exclaims,  “ Oh  that  my  words  were  written  ! Oh  that  they 
were  printed  in  a book.”  I presume  the  Hebrew  word,  rendered 
printed  in  our  version,  does  not,  in  its  original  language,  convey 
strictly  this  meaning.  Again — Job,  xxxi.,  35 — “ Oh  that  one  would 
hear  me ! Behold,  my  desire  is  that  the  Almighty  would  answer 
me,  and  that  mine  adversary  had  written  a book.”  It  therefore 
follows,  that  in  Job’s  day  (whenever  that  was)  books  were  not  un- 
known. 

His  affecting  and  pious  narrative,  while  it  combines  with  abun- 
dance of  other  evidence,  to  prove  that  the  pure  belief  in  One  God 
was  not  limited  to  the  Jewish  patriarch  Abraham,  after  the  first  cor- 
ruption of  our  forefathers,  assures  us,  that  written  chronicles,  and 
even  the  sublimest  poetry,  were  in  use  long  before  Moses.  We  are 
likewise  thus  made  aware,  that  this  inspired  writer,  when  he  com- 
piled the  Pentateuch,  did  not  disdain  the  records  of  Gentile  nations, 
in  the  case  of  Job,  to  console  the  Israelites  during  their  forty  years  of 
tribulation  in  the  wilderness  ; nor  did  his  descendants  consider  them 
unworthy  of  incorporation  into  their  sacred  books.  We  may  also 
gather  some  confirmative  inferences,  that  compilation  was  not  re- 
jected by  other  inspired  writers,  from  the  fact,  that  the  collection  of 
sacred  poems,  received  under  the  names  of  David’s  Psalms,  w’ere 
composed,  at  different  and  distant  intervals,  some  by  David,  and 
many  of  them  after  the  Babylonish  captivity  ; and  were  subsequently 
collected  together  in  the  Hebrew  archives,  and  attributed  exclusively, 
though  erroneously,  to  David,  by  the  Jews,  as  by  ourselves.  1 pass 
over  the  various  other  instances  to  be  found  insthe  Pentateuch,  all 
corroborative  of  the  correctness  of  the  assertion,  that,  in  Moses’  time, 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


19 


books  were  familiar  to  the  Hebrews  ; who  were  instructed  to  believe 
that  their  sins  were  recorded  in  the  Almighty’s  book — Exodus  xxxii., 
32,33 — which  was  no  new  doctrine  in  the  days  of  Moses  ; and  I 
extract  from  Dr.  Lamb’s  invaluable  work,  the  succeeding  paragraph, 
as  well  as  other  evidences. 

“ Every  attentive  reader  of  the  Bible  must  have  observed,  that 
the  book  of  Genesis  is  divided  into  two  perfectly  separate  and  dis- 
tinct histories.  The  first  part  is  an  account  of  the  Creation,  and 
the  general  history  of  mankind  up  to  the  building  of  the  Tower  of 
Babel.  The  second  part  is  the  history  of  Abraham,  and  his  de- 
scendants ; from  the  call  of  the  patriarch  in  the  land  of  Ur  of  the 
Chaldees,  to  the  death  of  Joseph,  after  the  settlement  of  the  children 
of  Israel  in  Goshen,  in  the  land  of  Egypt.  The  first  part  contains 
the  history  of  above  two  thousand  years ; and  is  contained  in  the  ten 
first  chapters  of  Genesis,  and  nine  verses  of  the  eleventh.  The  second 
part  comprises  a period  of  about  two  hundred  and  fifty  years,  and 
occupies  the  remaining  thirty-nine  chapters.  This  history,  which 
commences  at  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  chapter,  is  preceded  by 
a genealogical  table,  tracing  Abraham’s  pedigree  up  to  the  patriarch 
Shem.  Between  the  event  (Babel)  recorded  in  the  ninth  verse  of 
the  eleventh  chapter,  and  the  next  verse  (viz  : the  call  of  Abraham,) 
there  intervenes  a period  of  nearly  four  hundred  years,  during  which 
we  know  nothing  of  the  history  of  the  human  race  from  the  sacred 
Scriptures.” 

Thus,  then,  the  Israelites,  before  the  Exodus,  would  have  pos- 
sessed two  sacred  books.  One,  “ Genesis,”  properly  so  called ; and 
the  other,  “ The  History  of  Abraham.” 

There  is  no  reason  for  supposing  that  other  contemporary  nations 
did  net  possess,  in  those  early  times,  similar  records ; nor  is  there 
any  reason  why  other  contemporary  nations  should  not  have  chroni- 
cled all  great  events,  and  handed  down,  perhaps  as  far  as  ourselves, 
some  of  the  annals  of  those  events,  that  took  place  upon  the  earth, 
on  which  the  Bible,  during  an  interval  of  “ above  four  hundred 
years,”  is  strictly  silent.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  Egyptians  have. 

“We  know  that,  in  addition  to  these  (books,)  the  Hebrews  had 
another  book,  entitled  “ Milchamotli  Jehovah ” — the  “Wars  of  Jeho- 
vah”— (vague  traditions,  concerning  which  mythes  abound  in  Gen- 
tile records,  as  the  wars  of  the  gods  with  Titan,  the  Indian  primeval 
annals,  See.)  “ from  which  a quotation  is  given  in  Numbers  xxi.,14.” 

Learned  Hebraists  also  consider  that  the  Jews,  anterior  to  the  age 
of  Moses,  had  a collection  of  national  ballads,  in  a book,  entitled 
“ Sepher-Hajashur” — see  Joshua  x.,  13 — “ Is  not  this  written  in  the 
Book  of  Jasher  ? ” The  frequent  use  of  the  words,  “ and  he  sang,” 
are  deemed  to  allude  to  the  first  sentence  of  some  more  ancient 
song ; whence  the  title  of  a book  was  derived — Judges  v.,  1 — Debo- 
rah’s song  is  an  instance. 

It  is  finally  sustained,  by  great  church  theologians,  that  Moses, 
when,  under  the  inspiration  of  God,  he  indited  the  books  of  the  law, 
prefixed  to  them  a history  of  Abraham  and  his  posterity,  as  pre- 
served by  Israel’s  family ; and  at  the  same  time  rendered  their  sacred 
records  of  the  Creation  and  history  of  man  up  to  the  dispersion  at 
Babel  (which  are  presumed  to  have  been  written  in  a different  char- 
acter— probably  symbolic  writing — from  that  now  known  to  us  as 
the  Hebrew  letters,)  into  the  Hebrew  language,  as  current  in  Moses’ 
day. 

I am  thus  particular  in  demonstrating,  by  biblical  evidence,  that 
the  art  of  writing  did  not  originate  with  Moses,  lest  the  position 
now  indisputably  established,  of  the  prior  antiquity  of  this  art  among 
Gentile  nations,  of  the  earliest  periods,  should  appear  to  militate 
against  the  authenticity  of  the  Mosaic  record ; and  it  will  be  con- 
ceded, that  when  once,  by  arguments  grounded  on  the  Bible  itself, 
the  use  of  books  among  the  Hebrews  is  carried  back  to  antediluvian 
periods,  not  only  is  the  charge  of  heresy  in  these  matters  rendered 
nugatory,  but  the  inference  in  favor  of  a primary  divine  revelation 
considerably  strengthened. 

The  Jews  were  not  the  only  people  who  preserved  written  me- 
morials of  the  deluge,  for  among  all  nations  we  find  vague  traditions 
of  the  event  itself ; and  in  many  we  may  trace  the  former  existence 
of  written  chronicles.  If,  at  the  present  day,  we  cannot  produce 
voluminous  annals,  coeval  with  early  postdiluvian  eras,  in  support 
of  this  assertion,  we  can  adduce  abundance  of  historical  reasons,  to 
account  for  the  absence  of  these  primeval  documents  in  our  day,  in 
the  fearful  destruction  of  ancient  libraries  by  the  barbarous  fanaticism 
of  numerous  nations,  and  of  all  creeds;  no  less  than  by  accidents, 
and  casualties,  to  which,  from  their  inflammable  nature,  or  perishable 
materials,  all  literary  productions  are  liable.  Without  recapitulating 
the  various  instances  of  the  annihilation  of  ancient  archives  in  Asia 
Minor,  Greece,  and  Syria,  let  us  remember,  that  in  the  defence  of 
the  arsenal  against  the  furious  attacks  of  an  enraged  Alexandrian 
populace,  Julius  Caesar  could  not  save  the  Ptolemaic  library  from 
conflagration  ; while  the  subsequent  insensate  decree  of  the  ruthless 
Omar,  enforced  the  obliteration  of  the  second  mightiest  collection  of 
ancient  chronicles,  it  had  taken  600  years  to  accumulate  in  the 
Christian  Bibliothecal  repository  at  Alexandria.  In  China,  the 
”1  artar  conquerors  devoted  to  the  flames  the  precious  annals  of  ante- 
rior history;  while,  with  the  same  fiendish  zeal,  their  brethren  devas- 
tated many  of  the  Indian  and  Central  Asiatic  libraries.  The  Saracenic 
torrent  that  overthrew  the  dynasty  of  Chosroes — “ Khuzruff  ” — sa- 
tiated its  unrelenting  destructiveness  on  the  volumes  which  for  ages 


nad  accumulated  in  Persian  archives.  And  if,  in  some  partial  degree, 
the  intelligence  of  the  Abbaside  Caliphate  of  Bagdad,  the  transitory 
encouragement  of  letters  by  the  various  Arab  houses,  that  alternately 
ruled  over  Egypt,  er  the  liberal  patronage  afforded  to  science  and 
literature  by  the  Saracenic  dynasties  of  Morocco  and  Granada,  serve 
to  mitigate  the  anathemas,  which  we  are  justified  in  heaping  on  the 
entire  race  of  “Amawedyeh”  Saracens,  let  no  interposing  hand  save 
from  execration  the  descendants  of  the  Seljook,  or  Turcoman,  with 
those  of  the  untameable  and  desecrating  Mogul.  At  this  very  hour, 
the  Scythian  horde,  encamped  amid  the  ashes  of  once  populous  and 
civilized  communities,  is  the  same  irredeemable  aggregation  of  mis- 
creants, from  Constantinople  to  Egypt,  as  in  former  days;  and  if 
we  are  now  alive  to  deplore  the  historical  losses  we  owe  to  Turk, 
ish  barbarism,  it  is  solely  to  the  Christian  lances  of  our  own  chival- 
rous ancestry,  and,  at  the  present  hour,  to  the  dreaded  length  of  our 
bayonets,  that,  under  Providence,  we  are  indebted.  Mohammed 
Ali,  the  idol  of  a false  philanthropy,  the  praise-bespattered  mocker  of 
European  civilization,  has  destroyed,  in  Egypt,  more  monuments  of 
antiquity,  than  the  Hykshos,  than  Cambyses,  thvi  Artaxerxes  Ochus 
than  Lathyrus ; and,  while  mystified  Europe,  chants  “ Io  peeans  ” 
for  his  great  intentions,  he  has  permitted,  as  I have  elsewhere  shown, 
the  annihilation  of  more  historical  legends  in  40  years,  than  had 
been  compassed  by  18  centuries  of  Roman,  Byzantian,  Arab,  or 
Ottoman  misrule. 

Did  not  the  Tyrian  annals  perish  with  the  fleets  and  fortresses  of 
Phoenicia,  on  the  overthrow  of  the  mistress  of  the  deep  by  Alexander? 
Had  Marius  no  hand  in  the  obliteration  of  Punic  chronicles  at  Car- 
thage ? and  is  not  Titus  amenable  for  the  sacrilegous  annihilation 
of  Hebrew  archives  on  the  fall  of  Hierosolima  ? Did  not  Brennus, 
the  Gaul,  destroy  the  seven-hilled  city  herself,  with  all  her  public 
registers,  in  390  B.  C.? 

Wherever  we  turn  in  the  history  of  nations,  we  are  met  by  indis- 
putable evidence  of  the  former  existence  of  ancient  chronicles  through- 
out the  world,  accumulated  during  countless  centuries,  while  we  are 
harrowed  by  the  event,  which  has  deprived  us  of  their  possession. 

Impartiality  cannot  forget,  that  misdirected  zeal,  and  monkish 
fanaticism,  have  marked  every  Christian  country  with  a similar  dis- 
regard for  the  preservation  of  early  annals ; nor  can  we  spare  even 
our  ancestors  from  the  charge  of  cancelling,  in  order  to  insert  the 
reveries  of  a superstitious  recluse,  those  invaluable  pages  known  to 
us  as  Palimpsesti. 

Where  is  the  history  of  Hecatseus  of  Miletus  ? where  the  annals 
of  Manetho,  Berosus,  or  Eratosthenes?  a few  mutilated  fragments, 
are  all  we  possess  of  their  compendious  volumes  1 And  where  are 
the  still  earlier  records,  whence  they  compiled  their  information  ? 
Eternally  lost — save  such  as  Chamfollion  has  pointed  out  on  the 
monuments  and  papyri  of  Egypt  ! But,  if  we  are  deprived  of  the 
original  records  of  the  Gentiles,  we  must  not  forget,  that  the  deified 
Tiioth — the  first  Hermes  (erroneously  confounded  with  Hermes  Tris- 
megistus)  wrote,  and  perhaps  too,  in  antediluvian  periods,  in  sacred 
language,  and,  possibly,  in  purely  symbolic  characters,  the  wisdom 
and  philosophy  of  his  times.  Again,  we  must  not  omit  that,  after 
the  deluge,  Thoth  the  2nd — or  Trismegistus,  mystically  defined  as 
an  incarnation  of  his  antediluvian  prototype — had  written  forty-two 

volumes,  preserved  with  religious  care,  according  to  Clement, 

of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  194,  in  which  were  contained  all  the  rules,  pre- 
cepts, and  documents,  relating  to  religion,  to  dogma,  to  government, 
cosmogony,  to  astronomy,  to  geography,  to  medicine,  and  to  all  those 
arts  and  sciences,  whose  perfection  is  attested  by  the  still  standing 
works,  and  the  still  existing  remains  of  the  ancient  Egyptians. 

Authorities,  contemporary  with  the  decline  of  Pharaonic  glory, 
enumerated,  after  the  Persian  conquest,  B.  C.  525,  above  twenty 
thousand  volumes,  in  constant,  universal,  and  popular  use  among  the 
inhabitants  of  Egypt ; the  productions  of  a Suphis,  Athothis,  Necho, 
and  Petosiris — all  Egyptian  Pharaohs ; no  less  than  of  priests  and 
other  philosophers,  who  lived,  nearly  all  of  them,  ages  before  Moses  ; 
and  how  could  the  Jewish  historian  have  been  “learned  in  all  the  wis- 
dom of  the  Egyptians.” — Acts  vii.,  22 — if,  in  the  course  of  his  sacer- 
dotal education  at  Heliopolis,  or  Memphis,  he  was  not  initiated  in 
the  mysteries,  as  well  as  proficient  in  hieroglyphic  writing  ? and  if 
he  had  not  enjoyed  free  access  to  the  Egyptian  primeval  records  ? 

All  history  testifies  to  the  existence  of  books,  on  every  subject,  in 
early  Egypt.  We  know  the  names  of  many  of  the  authors;  some- 
times the  title  of  the  work  ; often  the  subject  of  their  literary  labors. 

Poems,  and,  above  all  others,  epic  poems  were  common  in  Egypt ; 
and  were  publicly  chanted  to  the  praises  of  deites,  or  to  perpetuate 
the  gtorious  actions  of  heroes.  Homer,  it  is  said,  visited  Egypt  about 
the  9th  century  B.  C.;  and  the  poet  Naucratis  charges  him  with 
gleaning  from  Egyptian  bards,  the  ideas  which,  with  such  sublimity 
of  thought  and  diction,  he  perpetuated  in  his  Iliad  and  Odyssey. 

Of  the  existence  of  such  poems,  no  doubt  can  now  be  sustained, 
after  reading  Salvolinis’  translation  of  the  hieratic  papyrus  (known 
as  Sallier’s)  at  Paris,  recording  the  conquests  of  Ramses  the  Great, 
about  B.  C.  1530.  And,  of  the  early  existence  of  royal  and  national 
libraries,  contemporary  with,  if  not  prior  to  the  epoch  of  Moses,  we 
are  made  certain  by  the  following  fact.  That  magnificent  ruin  at 
Thebes,  miscalled  the  Memnonium,  is,  I think  without  doubt,  the 
palace  of  Osvmandias,  described  by  Diodorus,  as  seen  by  Hecataeus 
in  the  59th  Olympiad.  It  then  contained  a library  of  sacred  books  ; 


.4 


ANCIENT  EGYPT 


over  tl>e  entrance-gateway  of  which  was  inscribed,  “ the  remedy  for 
the  soul.”  This  palace  is  the  Ramsessium,  a temple-palace  of 
Ramses  3rd,  (Sesostris)  and  over  the  mouldering  doorway,  which 
once  led  from  the  hall  to  the  now-destroyed  bibliothecal  repository, 
Champollion  was  the  first  to  read  in  hieroglyphics  over  the  heads  of 
‘‘Thoth  ” and  “Safk” — the  male  and  female  pities  of  arts,  sciences, 
and  letters — the  remarkably  appropriate  titles  “ Lady  of  Letters  ” — 
and  “ President  of  the  Library !” 

The  door  of  the  library,  at  the  Ramsessium,  might  be  cavilled  at, 
on-the  ground  of  its  erection  about  the  times  of  Moses.  We  will  go 
back  200  years,  to  the  sanctuary  of  the  temple  of  Luqsor — of  the 
day  of  Amunoph  the  3rd — whom  the  Greeks  and  Romans  degraded 
into  the  fabulous  Memnon.'  and  whose  statue  became  vocal,  for- 
sooth ! Here  an  inscription  over  “ Thoth  ” begins,  “ discourse  of 
the  Lord  of  the  divine  writings  ” — and  another  over  “ Safk,  Lady 
of  Letters!" 

The  enumeration  of  all  the  literary  works  of  the  Ancient  Egyp- 
tians, of  which  we  have  mementos,  requires  little  beyond  extracts 
from  Champollion  Figcac  ; but,  as  the  detail  does  not  possess  suf- 
ficient interest  to  general  readers,  I limit  myself  to  the  main  features 
of  the  theme.  The  discoveries  of  the  ardent  investigators  of  the 
new  school  have  authenticated  as  Egyptian  in  origin,  however  their 
mythology  was  misconstrued  by  the  authors,  or  their  copyists,  the 
ancient  writings  of  Apuleius,  Pcemander,  Horus-Apollo,  Hermapion  ; 
as  well  as  those  fragments,  known  to  classical  archaeologists  as  the 
Hermetic  books-  From  the  latter,  I have  taken  the  prophetic  motto, 
that  heads  in  my  lecture-room  the  illustrative  transparency — as  given 
by  Wilkinson  : 

“ O JEgypte,  jEgypte  ....  sol®  supererunt  fabul®,  et  ®que  in. 
ersdibiles  posteris  ....  sola  supererunt  verba  lapidibus  incisa.” 
And  I render,  from  the  French  of  Champollion  Figeac,  the  touching 
lament  the  whole  paragraph  contains: 

“ O Egypt,  Egypt!  a time  shall  come,  when,  in  lieu  of  a pure  reli- 
gion, and  of  a pure  belief,  thou  wilt  possess  nought  but  ridiculous 
fables,  incredible  to  posterity ; and  nothing  will  remain  to  thee,  but 
words  engraven  on  stones — the  only  monuments  that  will  attest  thy 
piety.” — ( Books  of  Hermes .) 

The  pure  resilitions  of  Egyptian  philosophical  doctrines  start,  in 
spite  of  their  Grecian  chrysalis  from  all  the  pages  we  possess  of 
Orpheus,  Pythagoras,  Plato,  and  Aristotle  ; and  evince,  that  in  philo- 
sophy, as  in  everything  else,  the  Greeks  borrowed  from  the  Egyp- 
tians ; who  are  not,  however,  amenable  for  errors,  that  originate  in 
the  vanity,  volatility,  and  misapprehension  of  the  Hellenes ; and 
which  invest  the  profound  and  practical  wisdom  of  the  teachers, 
with  the  puerilities  of  the  pupils.  The  touchstone  of  hieroglyphical 
analysis  now  enables  us  to  cull  the  Nilotic  pearls  from  the  mound, 
and  return  them  with  honor  to  their  proprietors  ; leaving  the  remain- 
der to  the  Greeks  as  their  exclusive  copyright. 

I have  been  thus  prolix,  to  show  that  history  sacred  and  profane, 
which,  however  doubtful  before  Champollion’s  discoveries,  is  now 
supported  by  hieroglyphical  evidence,  would  alone  suffice  to  over- 
throw the  fallacy,  that  attributes  to  Moses  the  invention  of  letters,  or 
to  the  Hebrews  the  exclusive  transmission  of  early  annals,  descrip- 
tive of  some  antediluvian,  and  many  postdiluvian  events.  The 
very  Scriptures  derive  confirmation  from  the  fact,  that  many  early 
nations  preserved  written  legends,  as  well  as  oral  traditions,  of  those 
primeval  days  ; and  I have  endeavored  to  account,  in  the  destruction 
of  well-authenticated  libraries,  for  the  reason,  why  the  Jewish 
Chronicles  were,  till  lately,  all  that  the  lapse  of  ages  has  preserved 
to  us.  There  are  remarkable  connections  between  fragments  of 
profane  historians,  and  several  parts  of  Genesis  ; and  the  practice  of 
preserving  every  species  of  written  chronicle,  being  far  more  ancient 
than  Moses,  recedes  into  the  mists  of  remote  antiquity,  among  nations 
distinct  from  the  Hebrews,  ethnographically  and  geographically,  and 
in  era  anterior  to,  as  in  modes  of  writing,  and  attributes  of  speech, 
removed  from  Jewish  assimilation  or  connection.  Berosus,  who 
wrote  B.  C.  268,  gives  a Chaldean  history  of  the  ten  antediluvian 
peneiations,  that  differs  but  in  names  from  the  Hebrew  account. 
He  expressly  affirms,  that  Xisuthrus  (whom  we  term  Noah)  com- 
piled memoirs  of  the  previous  history  of  mankind  before  the  flood,  from 
which  all  existing  accounts  were  said  to  have  been  derived.  Allowing 
them  to  be  a Semitic,  and  therefore,  to  the  Hebrews,  a cognate  tribe, 
we  cannot  deny  to  the  Chaldeans  a full  knowledge  of  the  art  of 
writing,  at  the  earliest  period,  for  they  must  have  been  familiar  with 
•ome  method  of  writing,  before  they  could  construct  tables  with 
astronomical  observations.  These  tables  are  allowed  by  theologian, 
as  likewise  by  astronomical  criticism,  to  date  as  far  back  as  B.  C. 
2234,  or  700  years  before  Moses  ! And  yet  Diodorus  distinctly 
avers,  that  the  Babylonians  learned  astronomy  from  the  Egyptians, 
“ being  themselves  an  Egyptian  colony .”  We  know,  monumentally, 
that  Mesopotamia — “Naharina” — was  a subdued  country,  tributary 
to  Egypt,  at  1600  B.  C. ; and  know  not  during  how  many  centuries 
previously  it  had  been  such.  Fragments  of  Sanconiathon  lead  us  to 
inferences  confirmatory  of  Berosus. 

Amid  these  various  records,  it  would  seem,  as  if  the  Jews  pre- 
served one  or  more  copies  of  primeval  legends,  which  by  Moses 
were  compiled  into  one  account;  collating  portions  of  them,  perhaps, 
with  similar  documents,  existing  in  the  hieroglyphic  character, 
luring  his  education  in  Egyptian  colleges.*  I say  “ similar  docu- 


ments,” because  we  have  the  authority  of  Plato,  (see  Wilkinson,  4lh 
vol.  p.  169,)  that  when  Solon  visited  Egypt,  about  549  B.  C.,  the 
Egyptian  priests,  with  whom  he  was  conversing  about  “ the  be- 
ginning of  all  things,”  said  to  him — “ You  mention  one  deluge  only, 
whereas  many  happened.”  I leave  it  to  geologists  to  define  the  true 
meaning  of  the  priests,  and  to  concede  the  correctness  of  the  Egyp- 
tian record. 

The  Egyptian  priests  told  Solon  many  things,  that  must  have 
humbled  his  Athenian  pride  of  superior  knowledge  ; but  one  fact 
that  they  told  him,  on  geography,  is  so  curious,  in  regard  to  the  “ far 
West,”  that  it  is  worthy  of  mention. 

We  know  the  maritime  abilities  of  the  Phoenicians,  and  we  can 
adduce  tangible  reasons  to  show,  that,  by  orders  of  Pharaoh  Necho, 
Africa  had  been  circumnavigated,  and  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope, 
about  600  B.  C.,  actually  doubled,  before  it  was  in  the  year  1497  of 
our  era,  discovered  by  Diaz  and  Vasco  de  Gama. 

The  Egyptians  had  intercourse  with  Hindostan,  the  Spice  Islands, 
and  China,  long  before  that  period;  and  in  maritime  skill  equalled, 
as  in  geographical  knowledge  they  surpassed  all  early  nations.  Now, 
when  Solon  was  receiving  that  instruction  in  the  Egyptian  sacerdotal 
colleges,  which  rendered  him  the  “ wisest  of  mankind,”  (among  the 
Athenians,)  besides  gleaning  an  insight  into  primeval  history,  and 
geology,  that  subsequently  induced  him  to  compose  a great  poem, 
wherein  he  treated  on  Attica,  before  the  Ogygian  flood,  and  on  the 
vast  Island,  which  had  sunk  into  the  Atlantic  Ocean  ; he  was 
informed  by  “ Sonchis,  one  of  the  priests,  of  the  existence  of  the  At- 
lantic Isles  ; which,  Sonchis  said,  were  larger  than  Africa  and 
Asia  united.”  See  Wilkinson — “Thebes” — p.  254,  extract  from 
Plato. 

In  the  course  of  these  essays  and  lectures,  I shall  incidentally 
advert  to  sundry  curious  facts  of  the  same  kind  ; but,  as  the  pj-esent 
chapter  and  the  following,  are  to  be  devoted  to  the  writings  of  the 
ancient  Egyptians,  I proceed  to  other  branches  of  my  subject,  with 
this  prefatory  remark,  that  is  requisite  to  do  away  with  any  seeming 
discrepancy  between  my  assertions,  and  those  views  of  Holy  writ, 
which,  in  common  with  many  others,  I was  taught  at  school.  It  is 
this : 

That  to  suppose  Hebrew  to  be  the  most  ancient  language,  and  the 
one  spoken  by  Adam  and  Noah,  is  a matter  of  opinion  ; contrary  to 
evidence  ; immaterial  in  itself,  as  regards  Christian  belief ; and  non- 
essential  to  any  view  of  the  case  ; but  to  suppose,  that,  within  a 
comparatively  few  years  after  Noah,  the  Jewish  annals  were  the 
only  written  Chronicles,  and  that  Hebrew  was  the  only  language,  in 
which  histories  of  antediluvian  events  were,  by  the  immediate 
descendants  of  Noah — those  whose  movements  were  affected  by  the 
Dispersion — preserved,  is,  at  the  present  hour,  an  untenable  fallacy. 
“ L’on  est  revenu  de  tout  5a.” 

That  to  suppose  Moses  to  be  the  inventor  of  letters  is  an  illusion  ; 
though  he  may  have  modified  the  Hebrew  alphabet ; and  there  are 
some  inferences,  to  be  drawn  from  similarity  of  alphabetic  charac- 
ters, that  he  may  have  adopted  some  Egyptian  phonetic  improve- 
ments on  the  primitive  Hebrew  method  of  symbolic  writings — “ like 
the  engravings  of  a signet  ” — inasmuch,  as  the  Egyptians,  for  more 
than  a thousand  years  before  his  time,  had  used  the  same  symbolic, 
figurative,  and  phonetic  signs,  that  were  in  popular  use  in  his  day  ; 
for,  according  to  Acts  vii.  22,  “ Moses  was  learned  in  all  the  wis- 
dom of  the  Egyptians.” 

It  has  been  clearly  shown,  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  John  Lamb,  of  Cam- 
bridge University,  that  the  Hebrew  alphabet  may  be  traced,  letter 
for  letter,  to  a primitive  hieroglyphic.  The  greater  part  of  theso 
hieroglyphical  parents  of  the  present  Hebrew  alphabet  are  unques- 
tionably Egyptian  ; but  while,  in  principle,  I entirely  coincide  with 
his  lucid  arrangement,  it  is  necessary  for  a hierologist  to  state,  that 
some  of  the  symbols  are  not  strictly  Egyptian,  although  it  is  possible 
other  homophones  would  supply  the  vacancies.  In  his  opinion,  as  in 
that  of  many  other  English  and  Continental  hebraists,  the  original, 
and  perhaps  antediluvian,  mode  of  writing  was  picture  writing,  01 
idiographic  ; whence  all  alphabets  were  subsequently  derived  ; each 
taking  that  form  consistent  with  the  genius  of  each  language,  as 
spoken  and  written  by  the  earliest  families  of  the  human  race. 

In  speculating,  however,  upon  these  hitherto  insoluble  problems, 
it  seems  to  me  orthodox,  as  well  as  reasonable,  knowing  as  we  do 
from  Scripture  that  books  existed  long  before  Moses,  and  probably 
long  before  Noah,  to  reflect  upon  the  following  crude  supposition, 
which  I advance  hypothetically,  with  deference  to  superior  judgment. 

When  mankind,  either  on  the  primitive  peaceful  separation  of  the 
children  of  Noah,  in  the  days  of  Peleg  (whose  name  in  Hebrew 
means  “ to  divide,”  and  “ to  separate,”)  or,  on  the  subsequent  vio- 
lent and  miraculous  dispersion  at  Babel,  in  the  plains  of  Shinar, 
sought  in  varied  climes,  and  under  infinitely.diversified  circum- 
stances, to  obey  the  Creator's  fiat,  “ Go  forth,  be  fruitful  and  multi, 
ply,”  each  distinct  family  of  man,  proceeding  “ in  sorrow,”  “ to 
eat  bread,”  by  “ the  sweat  of  his  face,  till  he  return  unto  the 
ground,”  carried  with  the  physical  diversities,  and  craniological, 
osteological,  capillary,  and  cuticular  varieties  of  his  peculiar  race, 
the  differences  of  language. 

Each  distinct  family  of  man,  (or  perhaps  only  the  higher  Caucasian 
castes,)  may  have  possessed  a transcript  of  that  original,  primeval 

* Confr.  Faber— Origin  ofPagan  Idolatry— pp.  302-3 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


IS 


chronicle,  that  contained  memorials  of  the  flood,  and  of  anterior 
events. 

To  the  intervention  of  time,  and  vast  geographical  distances,  the 
changes  of  method,  and  the  alteration  of  alphabetic  signs,  may  pos- 
sibly be  traced,  and  probably  attributed. 

Some  nations,  in  the  lapse  of  ages,  may  have  forgotten  the  primi. 
five  art  of  writing  ; but  have  preserved  oral  traditions  of  the  former 
existence  of  that  art ; and  these  nations  may  have  set  about  the  re- 
discovery of  the  mode  of  transmitting  their  thoughts,  in  writing,  to 
posterity.  And  while,  under  this  view,  I proceed  to  show  what 
might  possibly  have  been  the  process,  by  which  this  lost  art  could 
have  been  recovered,  I would  observe,  that  a strong  analogy  in  tra- 
cing writing  to  primeval  Revelation  may  be  found,  in  ascending  to 
the  divine  origin  of  the  belief  in  the  unity  of  the  Godhead,  and  of  his 
ineffable  attributes  in  the  Trinity,  (Monotheism,  mystically  developed 
in  triads,)  the  existence  of  which  pure  primeval  creed  among  the 
Gentiles,  is  shown  by  the  mythological  systems  of  the  Hindoos,  the 
Pelasgic  Greeks,  the  Orphic  philosophers,  the  Tyrians,  the  Sidoni- 
ans,  the  Syrians,  the  Edessenes,  the  Chaldeans,  the  Peruvians,  (?)  the 
Chinese,  and  Ultra-Gangetic  nations,  of  the  remotest  antiquity,  to 
have  been  the  same,  as,  thoroughly  demonstrable  by  hieroglyphical 
discoveries,  it  is  now  proved  to  have  been  the  faith  of  those  initiated 
in  the  hierophantic  mysteries  of  the  traduced,  and  misunderstood, 
Ancient  Egyptians.* 

The  narrow  limits  of  this  hurried  treatise  preclude  the  develop- 
ment I could  wish  to  give  to  this  portion  of  my  subject.  In  attribu- 
ting the  art  of  writing  to  primary  Revelation,  there  arises  a difficulty 
from  the  query,  how,  if  the  art  were  known  to  mankind  at  the  Dis- 
persion, does  it  happen  that  each  early  nation  should  have  used  a 
different  alphabet  ? This  might  be  met,  if  not  answered,  by  a pa- 
rallel question  ; how  is  it,  that  each  family  of  man  s^oke  a different 
language  after  Babel?  We  must  recognize  the  will  of  Divine 
Providence  in  both  cases. 

I cannot  reconcile  with  Scriptural  chronology,  however  extended, 
the  lapse  of  time  adequate  for  the  rude  uninstructcd  savage  to  ac- 
quire, among  the  myriads  of  progressive  steps  toward  civilization, 
the  art  of  writing,  whether  by  symbolic,  or  alphabetic  signs.  Writ- 
ing may  be  for  ever  unnecessary  to  vast  tribes  of  human  beings,  who 
are  far  above  the  savage  in  the  scale  of  civilization  ; and  would, 
assuredly,  not  have  been  the  art  which,  for  many  generations,  a sav- 
age community  would  strive  to  acquire,  or  to  which  their  first  efforts 
would  be  directed.  Centuries  would  elapse,  before  the  hypothet- 
ical savage  could  reach  that  wonderful  process,  attested  by  Egyptian 
monuments,  still  erect  on  Nilotic  shores,  whose  construction  precedes 
Abraham  by  unnumbered  generations. 

But,  if  we  cannot  reconcile,  with  any  view  of  biblical  chronology, 
the  intervening  and  undefmable  measure  of  time,  when  we  start  with 
an  uninspired  savage,  and  gradually  mould  him  into  a civilized  man  ; 
we  have  abundance  of  evidence  to  bring  forward,  when,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  Pentateuch,  we  suppose  a primeval,  and  heaven- 
descended  state  of  civilization,  front  which,  after  paganism , or 
feteechism,  strictly  so  called,  had  supplanted  the  pure  primitive  creed 
in  some  nations,  (as  in  the  case  of  Terah,  progenitor  of  the  “father 
of  the  faithful”)  mankind  subsequently  fell  off. 

So  soon  as  lapse  of  time,  and  great  geographical  distances,  had 
separated  some  families  of  the  human  race  from  all  relations  with,  or 
approximation  to  the  habits  of,  the  others,  it  is  quite  rational  to  con. 
jecture  that,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  remoter  tribes  receded  from 
the  worship  of  the  true  Deity,  they  lost  the  arts  and  civilization  of  their 
primitive  origin,  and  among  them  the  art  of  writing,  or  the  primeval 
alphabet.  Man  is  prone  to  deterioration  ; and  I think  it  could  be  tol- 
erably well  sustained,  though  the  argument  is  herein  irrelevant,  that 
none,  but  the  Caucasian  families,  possess  the  vital  rudiments  for  con- 
tinual and  progressive  moral,  physical,  and  intellectual  improvement. 

Yet,  oral  tradition,  handed  down  from  father  to  son,  it  may  well 
be  conceived,  would,  for  an  indefinite  series  of  generations,  prolong 
the  memory  of  the  vague  fact,  that,  at  one  time,  their  ancestors  pos- 
sessed a mode  of  expressing,  ideographically  by  symbols,  or  by  any 
other  species  of  mnemonics,  their  ideas  to  each  other,  independ- 
ently of  time  or  space.  As  society  advanced,  and  the  necessities  of 
man  were,  by  experience,  supplied,  some  one  of  those  gifted  intel- 
lects, that  arise  in  every  community,  turned  his  thoughts  and  efforts  to 
rediscover  that  process,  which  oral  tradition  assured  him  was  once 
known  to  his  forefathers  ; and,  with  more  or  less  success,  he  and  his 
descendants  perfected  a system,  which,  in  some  nations,  as  for 
instance-,  the  Japetiiic,  is  perfect  and  purely  alphabetic.  In  Mexican 
tribes  (so  far  as,  at  this  day,  is  known  about  them  in  Europe) 
they  never  appear  to  havegone  much  bcyondpictorial  representations 
of  the  scenes,  and  symbolical  expressions  of  the  ideas  they  strove  to 
perpetuate.  Among  the  children  of  Shem,  we  may  suppose  there 
was  retained  a nearer  approximation  to  the  original  alphabet,  or 
primitive  pictorial  method  of  writing. 

In  China,  among  the  Mongolian  families,  the  Alphabetic  system 
was  never  successfully  reached  ; and  when  they  wish  to  write  an 


* Consult  the  hierological  authorities;  and  Cory's  “Mythological  Inquiry:”  Mushet 
• cn  the  Trinity  ot  the  Ancients,”  London.  1837  ; Maurice,  “ Orientnl  Trinities  •”  Co- 
rr,  " Ancient  Fragments  Portal,  “Couleurs  Symboliques  “Symboles  des 
Knyptient,”  Paris.  1810.  Faber  “Origin  of  Pagan  Idolatry;”  as  well  as  Prichard 
and  Bryant  ’ 


European  name,  the  characters  employed  represent  the  entire  sylla. 
ble,  or  colloquial  sound  of  that  syllable,  which  these  characters  ex- 
press in  ordinary  use.  In  that  country  (civilized  and  stationary  in 
arts  and  sciences  though  it  be,)  the  primary  institution  of  writing  bj 
pictorial  representation  of  figures,  (adopted  by  the  Chinese  prior  to  B 
C.  2269,)  was  soon  changed  into  arbitrary  marks,  not  for  a letter, 
but  for  the  whole  word,  or  idea,  though  it  has  never  been  reduced 
into  the  simple  phonetic  forms  of  our  alphabets. 

The  arrow-headed,  or  cuneiform  character,  (a  specimen  of  whicti 
is  produced  further  on)  used  by  the  ancient  Persians  down  to  the 
period  of  Cambysesand  Darius-Nothus,  is  an  anomaly  in  the  order  oi 
alphabets,  that  I have  not  yet  seen  satisfactorily  explained. 

In  Egypt,  among  the  children  of  Ham,  the  art  of  writing  was  a 
combination  of  alphabetic,  or  phonetic  signs,  (to  express  a letter  ;) 
of  figurative  signs;  and  of  symbolic  signs  ; with  some  curious  and 
useful  abridgements  from  the  hieroglyphic  (which  comprises  tht 
whole  of  the  above  three  classes)  to  the  hieratic  character,  and,  in 
comparatively  modern  times,  to  the  demotic  or  enchorial ; until  the 
Greek  alphabet,  augmented  by  seven  letters  taken  from  the  demotic 
texts,  was  introduced  with  Christianity,  during  the  Roman  dominion, 
and  formed  those  letters  known  to  us  as  the  Coptic. 

How  immensely  the  knowledge,  or  conviction,  that,  at  some  pre- 
vious period,  the  progenitors  of  one  of  these  supposititious  rediscov. 
erers,  rather  than  inventors,  of  the  art  of  writing,  had  the  power  of 
expressing  and  perpetuating  their  thoughts,  independently  of  time 
or  space,  must  have  fortified  the  soul  of  him  who  labored  to  recover 
the  lost  secret,  may  well  be  conceived.  He  worked  upon  a certainly , 
as  does  the  child,  who  endeavors  to  put  together  the  scattered  com. 
ponent  parts  of  a dissected  map.  The  child,  being  so  told,  knows 
that  it  can  be  done.  He  derives  encouragement  from  this  conviction, 
and,  with  redoubled  energy,  bends  his  intelligence  to  the  task.  How 
hopeless  must  have  been  the  labor  of  that  man,  who,  without  any 
information  regarding  the  possibility  of  such  an  achievement,  essayed 
to  discover,  or  to  invent,  a means  ol  recording  his  thoughts  ! 

I confess,  I look  upon  it  as  almost  impracticable  ; and  fall  back  on 
primary  revelation.  If  Columbus,  (although,  till  the  Society  of  north, 
ern  antiquaries  at  Copenhagen  enlightened  us,  we  used  to  believe 
the  contrary,)  had  not  learned,  in  his  previous  visit  to  Iceland,  of 
the  existence  of  a western  Continent  and  of  the  early  voyages  of  the 
dauntless  “ Eric  the  Red,”  can  we  well  suppose,  that,  with  such 
confidence,  he  would  boldly  have  steered  across  the  Atlantic  from 
Spain  to  the  West  Indies?  In  the  same  manner,  the  knowledge 
that  there  had  been  a mode  of  writing  in  existence  formerly,  must 
have  materially  facilitated  the  rediscovery  of  letters,  by  those  nations 
that  had  lost  the  primeval  art. 

One  or  more  families  of  man  in  early  antiquity,  may  have  redis. 
covered  this  lost  art  for  themselves,  independently  of  contemporary 
nations.  We  cun  trace  the  affinities  of  all  known  alphabets,  by  his- 
tory and  by  analytical  processes,  to  a very  few  parental  stocks;  bu‘ 
this  we  do  know,  that  the  origin  of  writing  in  Egypt  is  unknown, 
though  it  is  autocthon,  or  indigenous;  that,  at  the  very  earliest  time 
of  which  we  can  find  relics,  it  was  the  same  system  as  at  any  subse- 
quent Pharaonic  period,  and  a perfect  system;  that  the  antiquity  of 
the  art  in  Egypt  surpasses  the  record  of  any  nation  on  earth,  save  in 
respect  to  the  first  chapters  of  Genesis  ; that,  if  the  Egyptians  did  not 
invent  the  alphabet,  they  rediscovered  its  equivalent  for  themselves; 
and  finally,  it  would  be  far  more  easy  to  derive  all  phonetic  charac- 
ters, not  excepting  the  Hebrew  (as  shown  by  the  researches  of  Lamb) 
from  the  Egyptians,  than  to  maintain  that  the  Egyptians  derived  their 
art  of  writing  from  any  other  source  but  the  common  primeval  reve- 
lation, or  its  remembrance,  if  they  were  not  the  inventors  of  writing  ! 

The  remote  antiquity  of  hieroglyphical  writing,  may  be  inferred 
from  the  fact,  that  it  must  have  existed  before  the  use  of  the  solar 
month  in  Egypt;  which  astronomical  observations,  on  Egyptian  re- 
cords, prove  to  have  been  in  use  at  an  epoch  close  up  to  the  Septua. 
gint  era  of  the  Flood. 

From  Egyptian  annals  we  may  glean  some  faint  confirmation  of 
the  view,  that  they  either  possessed  the  primeval  alphabet,  or  else 
that  they  rediscovered  its  equivalent,  from  the  mystic  functions  and 
attributes  of  the  two  “ Thoths  ” — the  first  and  second  Hermes — both 
Egyptian  mythological  personages,  deified  as  attributes  of  the  God 
head. 

To  “ Thoth,”  Mercury,  or  the  first  Hermes,  the  Egyptians  ascribed 
the  invention  of  letters ; and  there  is  seeming  reason  to  consider  him 
the  type  of  that  antediluvian  revelation  to  man,  of  which  the  Bible 
gives  us  indications.  He  belongs,  in  Manetho’s  history,  and  in  the 
“ Old  Chronicle,”  to  that  shadowy  period  designated  as  “ the  rule  of 
the  gods,”  to  veil  under  a fable  (probably  explained  by  the  hiero- 
phants to  the  initiated ) the  record  of  antediluvian  periods. 

But,  among  the  deities  of  Egypt — known,  in  hieroglyphics,  as 
“ Thoth,  Lord  of  Pautnouphis  ” — who,  under  the  Greek  appellative 
of  Hermes  Trismegistus  (the  thrice-great  Hermes,)  or  “ Thoth”  the 
second,  was  an  emanation  of  the  first  Hermes,  there  is  another  “ Thoth, 
lord  of  the  divine  writings,”  who  was  likewise  a patron  of  arts  and 
sciences. 

I cannot  but  speculate,  that  this  second  “ Thoth  ” was,  in  postdilu. 
vian  times,  the  rediscoverer  of  an  art  of  writing,  attributed  by  the 
Egyptians  to  the  invention,  in  antediluvian  periods,  of  his  namesake 
and  prototype.  (?) 


16 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


Under  Dr.  Lamb’s  view,  that  Hebrew  characters  may  have  been 
the  nearest  approach  to  the  primeval  “ picture  writing,”  this  redis. 
covery  by  the  second  Thoth  (who  was  doubtless  a priest  and  philoso- 
pher,) of  the  art  of  writing  in  Egypt,  will  account  for  any  diversities 
or  analogies  between  the  Egyptian  compound  hieroglyphic  system, 
and  the  phonetic  method  adopted  by  the  Hebfews  at  the  Mosaic  era, 
no  less  than  in  regard  to  other  purely  alphabetic  systems. 

The  process  by  which  Thoth  the  second  arrived  at  hieroglyphic 
writing,  may  have  been  as  follows  : 

The  first  attempts  were  probably  limited  to  the  figurative  or  picto. 
rial  method  of  expressing  the  image  of  the  thing,  for  the  thing  itself ; 
as  the  d.awing  of  a hand,  to  denote  a hand,  and  so  forth. 

In  Egypt,  as  has  been  clearly  elucidated  by  the  profound  Rosellini, 
the  arts  of  design  and  writing  were  invariably  associated  ; and  neither 
the  Egyptians  nor  any  other  nation  ever  adopted  the  art  of  drawing, 
before  they  felt  the  necessity  of  writing  ; and  drawing  was  produced 
in  the  endeavor  to  discover  some  mode  of  expressing  ideas ; so  that 
the  people  who  invented  painting  and  sculpture,  were  impelled  toward 
the  exercise  of  these  arts  by  the  desire  of  writing  ; and  the  means 
taken  to  write  were  the  causes  and  producing  motives  of  the  art  of 
drawing. 

Drawing  was  therefore  the  most  natural  medium,  and,  in  those 
early  days,  the  most  effective,  to  satisfy  those  cravings,  inherent  in 
intellectual  man,  which  had  in  view  the  creation  of  a power  to  com- 
municate with  persons  removed  from  the  draughtsman  by  time  and 
space,  rather  than  to  imitate  the  various  works  of  nature.  The  study 
of  representing  things  pictorially,  had,  in  those  primitive  times,  no 
other  object  than  to  effect  that  which  was  completely  achieved  by 
the  introduction  of  signs  for  sounds. 

Of  the  introduction  of  these  letters,  we  have  the  fact  before  us  in 
every  Egyptian  legend,  from  the  earliest  postdiluvian  epoch  admis- 
sible, down  to  the  extinction  of  hieroglyphical  wr'.ti»g  in  the  third 
century  of  the  Christian  era,  a period  of  at  least  3W1»  years  ; but  we 
cannot  name  the  introducer,  except  in  the  legendary  Thoth  ; nor 
state  positively  how  this  discovery  was  made  in  Egypt. 

The  arts  of  writing,  drawing,  painting,  and  sculpture,  in  ancient 
Egypt,  were  emblematized  by  one  symbol  ; and,  in  hieroglyphics, 
were  expressed  thus : 


corresponding  phonetically 


n\\K 


C£b*S 


Skiiai.  This  symbol  expressed,  in  the  sacred  character,  the  signifi- 
cation and  the  sound  of  the  words  “ to  paint,”  “ the  painter,”  “ to 
write,”  and  “ the  writer  as  also  “ writings  ” — ypa/q/ara.  The 
symbol  itself  is  compounded  of  three  things,  all  connected  with  its 

meaning;  as  “ the  reed,”  k used  in  writing,  at  the  present  day,  by 

“qdlam;”  “ the  vase,”  or  ink-bot- 

ette,”  m whereon  he  poured 

ling  t 


the  Arabs,  and  termed 
tie  ; and  the  “ scribes’  pal 
his  red  and  black  inks,  fil 
tre. 


whereon 
he  little  hollows  in  its  cen- 


In  precisely  the  same  manner,  in  ancient  Greek,  the  words  “ to 
describe,”  “ to  draw,”  “ to  engrave,”  and  “ to  write,”  were  all  com- 
prised in  the  same  verb — ypapur. 

By  analogical  reasoning,  then,  we  may  infer,  that  the  progressive 
steps  toward  the  development  of  hieroglyphical  writing,  may  have 
been  in  the  following  order : 

1st.  That  material  objects  struck  their  view,  and  to  transmit  them 
to  posterity,  or  to  preserve  the  idea  of  one  of  these  objects,  they 
painted  the  figure  of  the  thing  itself ; and  this  would  be  figurative 
writing. 

2nd.  That  the  insufficiency  of  this  plan  in  application  was  imme 
diately  felt.  In  painting  the  figure  of  a man,  they  could  not  express 
what  man ; and  to  define  him,  they  added  a tropical  sign  or  symbol 
of  another  thing  in  some  way  associated  with  this  particular  man. 
This  would  be  symbolic  writing. 

3rd.  That  then  certain  arbitrary,  and  in  due  course,  conventional 
signs  were  added,  to  express  the  idea  of  an  immaterial  object;  as  a 
hatchet  for  a god,  an  urasus  (asp)  for  royalty,  & c. 

4th.  They  finally  contrived  to  introduce  divers  representatives  of 
bound,  taking,  to  de note  each  letter,  those  objects  the  names  of  which, 
,.v  their  language,  began  with  the  initial  sound  of  that  designation ; 
that  is,  when  they  wanted  to  denote  the  articulation  L,  they  drew  a 
Lion,  and  so  on.  This  would  be  phonetic  writing ; and  is  the  prin- 
ciple that  originated  many  Semitic  alphabets,  as  the  Hebrew,  the 
Samaritan,  the  Phoenician,  &c.  as  well  as  those  of  some  other  nations. 

In  Egyptian  hieroglyphics,  as  may  be  seen  in  part  by  the  alphabet, 
there  are,  in  some  instances,  as  many  as  twenty-five  different  charac- 
ters used  to  represent  one  letter,  and  these  are  termed  “homophones” 
of  that  letter. 

Vine  immense  advantage  accrued  in  monumental  legends  from  this 
vanety,  for  the  artist  was  thus  enabled  to  employ  those  figures  which, 
while  representing  the  articulated  sound  of  the  letter,  had  by  their 
form  a relation  to  the  idea  these  signs  were  to  express.  The  writer 
could  thus,  by  the  judicious  selection  of  his  letters  from  the  variety 
of  his  homophones,  convey  a meaning  of  admiration,  praise,  dignity, 


beauty,  strength,  &c.,  or  he  could  denote  disgust,  hatred,  insignifL 
cance,  or  other  depreciatory  opinions. 

I will  endeavor  to  render  this  apparent  by  an  example.  Suppose 
we  wished  to  adopt  the  same  system  in  our  language  and  write  the 
word  “America  ” in  hieroglyphics.  I use  pure  Egyptian  hieroglyphic* 
as  letters,  adapting  them  to  English  values : 

A — We  might  select  one  out  of  many  more  or  less  apropriate  sym- 
bols ; as  an  asp,  apple,  altar,  amaranth,  anchor,  archer,  arrow, 
antelope,  axe.  I choose  the  asp,  ^ symbolic  of  “ sove- 
reignty.” 


M — We  have  a mace,  mast,  mastiff,  moon,  mouse,  mummy,  musket, 


maize.  I select  the  mace, 
minion.” 


indicative  of  “military  do- 


E — An  ear,  egg,  eagle,  elk,  eye.  The  eagle  jd  is  undoubt- 
edly the  most  appropriate,  being  the  iMfe.  “ national 

arms  of  the  Union,”  and  means  “ cour  yjj^^^age.” 

R — A rabbit,  ram,  racoon,  ring,  rock,  rope.  I take  the  ram, 
by  synecdoche,  placing  a part  for  the  whole,  emblem- 
atic of  “ frontal  power  ” — intellect — and  sacred  to 
Amun. 

I — An  insect,  Indian,  infant,  ivy.  An  infant  IA  will  typify  “ the 
juvenile  age  ” and  still  undeveloped  Hlfl  strength  of  this 
great  country. 

C — A cake,  caldron,  cat,  clam,  carman,  constellation , curlew,  cone, 
crescent.  The  crescent  would  indicate  the  rising  power  of 
the  United  States ; the  constellation  of  stars  would  emblem- 
atize the  States,  and  is  borne  aloft  in  the  American  banner ; 
but  I choose  the  cake — /"V'N  die  consecrated  bread — typical 
of  a “ civilized  region.”  ► . 

A — An  anchor,  or  any  of  the  above  words  beginning  with  A,  would 
answer : the  anchor  would  symbolize  “ maritime  greatness,” 
associated  with  “safety”  and  “stability”;  but  not  being  an 
Egyptian  emblem,  I take  the  “sacred  Tad,”  Q the  symbol 
of  “ eternal  life,”  which  in  the  alphabet  is  * Y— * an  A. 

To  designate  that  by  this  combination  of  symbols  we  mean  a 

country,  I add  the  sign  in  Coptic  “ Kah,”  meaning  a 

country,  and  determinative  of  geographical  appellatives. 

We  thus  obtain  phonetically — 


M E 


R 


while  symbolically,  the  characters  chosen  imply  “ sovereignty,  mili- 
tary dominion,  courage,  intelligence,  juvenility,  civilization,  and 
eternal  durability.” 

This  example,  however,  gives  but  a faint  idea  of  the  beauty,  and 
often  exquisite  propriety,  of  Egyptian  composition,  or  of  the  com. 
plexity  of  the  hieroglyphic  art  of  writing.  It  will  be  allowed,  that, 
even  this  anglicized  illustration  of  the  word  America  does  not  render 
its  perspicuity  very  apparent ; and,  with  a full  acquaintance  of  tho 
language,  it  would  be  a puzzle  to  a decipherer.  How  much  moro 
so,  when  the  vowels  may  be  omitted,  as  they  generally  are,  and  only 
the  consonants  written  ; as,  “ MRC,  country  ”! 

Let  the  reader  figure  to  himself  the  fashion  introduced  in  this  coun- 
try, of  following  the  graphical  system  of  the  early  Egyptians ; and 
that  the  Capitol  at  Washington  were  covered  with  sculptured  and 
painted  legends,  recording  the  annals  of  the  United  States ! Suppose 
these  legends  were  written  with  the  general  suppression  of  some 
vowels,  or  the  transmutability  of  others.  Then  imagine  the  Ameri. 
can  hieroglyphics,  in  the  lapse  of  ages,  to  become  entirely  forgotten  ; 
the  people  who  wrote  the  legends — those  who  could  speak  or  read 
English — entirely  obliterated  from  the  face  of  the  earth ; their  lan- 
guage dead  ; the  Capitol  a shapeless  pile  of  ruins  ! 

Suppose,  that  another  and  a distinct  race  of  men,  from  another 
hemisphere,  after  two  thousand  years,  while  possessing  mere  vague 
traditions  of  ancient  American  glory — uncertain  as  to  the  epoch  of 
these  mutilated  sculptures — mystified  as  to  the  very  language  in 
which  they  were  written — amid  the  general  hue  and  cry  that  “ hiero- 
glyphics are  all  nonsense  ” — endeavored  to  unravel  their  mysterious 
subjects ! 

Grant  that  the  task  would  be  in  nature  herculean — that  its  even- 
tual success  would  appear  chimerical.  Yet  even  this  would  not  be 
so  difficult,  as  to  decipher  a crumbling  fragment  of  an  Act  of  Con- 
gress written  in  a tachygraphic,  or  abridged  form  of  these  identicar 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


17 


American  hieroglyphics,  oil  a fragile  papyrus,  exhumed  from  the 
ruins  of  the  once-towering  Capitol ! 

You  can  scarcely  conceive  such  a contingency  possible  as  a trans- 
lation of  all  these  things  ? and  yet,  such  was  precisely  the  position  of 
Egyptian  hieroglyphics  in  1802,  when  the  “ Rosetta  Stone  ” arrived  in 
Europe  ! such  was  the  state  of  hierology  when  Young,  in  1810,  struck 
the  first  sparks  from  the  flinty  basalt,  whereon  were  engraven  two 
unknown  inscriptions  ! such  was  the  “ darkness  of  Egypt,”  when 
Chamfollion’s  meteoric  flashes  illumined  the  archaeological  hemi- 
sphere ! 

When  we,  in  1843,  calmly  reflect  on  the  intellects  and  the  souls  it 
has  required,  to  face  and  to  overcome  these  obstacles,  till  every 
Egyptian  legend  can  be  understood,  its  purport  defined,  and  the 
main  sense  of  the  most  intricate  papyrus  clearly  expounded,  let  us 
allow,  that  to  the  modern  iiierologists  we  are  indebted  for  these 
glorious  achievements. 

I again  refer  those  interested  in  the  early  labors  of  the  hieroglyphi- 
cal  students,  to  Dr.  Young’s  Article  in  the  Encyclopedia  Britan- 
nica,  and  to  Champollion’s  “ Precis  des  Hieroglyphes,”  for  proofs 
of  the  discovery  ; and  to  the  “ Grammaire  Egyptienne,”  as  an  in- 
controvertible monument  of  unqualified  success.  My  part  is  simply 
to  give  the  summary  of  the  language  as  it  is  now  understood. 

Complicated  as,  owing  to  our  ignorance,  the  hieroglyphical  writing 
of  Egypt  now  appears  to  us,  it  was  (together  with  the  Hieratic  char- 
acter, and,  in  later  times,  the  Demotic,)  in  constant,  general,  and 
popular  use,  among  all  classes,  all  persons,  in  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  ; 
and  the  illusion  under  which  we  have  labored  for  ages,  excited  by. 
the  mysterious  appearance  and  still-rumored  unintelligibility  of  the 
writings  themselves,  and  misled  by  the  puerile  misinformation  of 
Greek  writers,  that  the  arts  of  reading  and  writing  were  withheld  by 
the  priests  from  the  lower  classes,  is  dispelled  by  a glance  at  the 
monuments.  The  fact  is,  as  the  Greek  and  Roman  writers  did  not 
understand  either  the  Egyptian  tongue,  or  the  Egyptian  writings,  they 
represented  those  subjects  which  they  were  too  volatile,  or  self-defi- 
cient to  inquire  about  themselves,  to  be  impenetrable  mysteries.  We, 
however,  have  indisputable  evidences,  that  reading  and  writing 
were  in  Ancient  Egypt  (in  days  coeval  with  the  Pyramids)  as  pub- 
licly known,  and  in  as  popular  use,  without  respect  to  caste,  to 
wealth,  or  poverty,  as  in  many  Christian  and  not-uncivilized  coun- 
tries, at  the  present  day.  Its  graphical  signs  were  termed,  by  the 
Greeks,  hieroglyphics,  meaning  literally  “ Sacred  sculptured  char- 
acters.” 

Plato  and  Plutarch  both  affirm,  that  the  writing  invented  by  the 
1st.  Thoth,  whom  we  have  called  the  antediluvian  Hermes,  differed 
from  that,  which,  according  to  my  view,  was  rediscovered  by  Tiioth 
the  2nd.,  whom  we  have  termed  the  postdiluvian  Hermes.  It 
is  the  writing  of  this  second  Thoth,  which,  under  the  name  of 
hieroglyphics,  has  come  down  to  our  day,  on  Nilotic  monuments, 
from  the  remotest  period  since  the  colonization  of  Egypt  by  the  sons 
of  Mizraim  ; and  which  was  in  current  use,  in  ages  coeval  with  the 
Pyramids,  even  among  the  stone-masons,  and  the  farmers  We 
now  know,  that  the  idea  entertained  till  lately,  even  by  some  of  the 
most  eminent  Egyptologists,  “ that  no  hieroglyphics  are  to  be  found 
in,  or  were  known  in  the  days  of,  the  Pyramids,”  is  an  illusion,  over- 
thrown by  Col.  Vyse’s  discoveries.  This  tradition  of  the  difference 
existing  between  the  writings  of  the  two  Thoths,  comes  in  very 
appropriately,  when  we  suppose,  that  the  primitive  method  of  writ- 
ing revealed  to  man  prior  to  the  Flood,  had  been  lost  by  some  nations, 
after  the  Dispersion  ; and  the  rediscovery  of  the  art  in  Egypt  will 
account  for  some  of  the  differences  between  the  Nilotic  system,  and 
those  primitive  alphabets,  or  other  forms  of  expressing  ideas  in  use 
among  early  nations. 

After  the  rough  draught  of  the  foregoing  ideas  had  been  formed 
at  Philadelphia,  I had  a gratifying  opportunity  of  submitting  them 
to  a distinguished  American  philologist — H.  Hale,  Esq.,  late  of  the 
exploring  Expedition  ; and  I was  exceedingly  proud  to  find,  that,  in 
the  course  of  his  varied  inquiries  into  the  causes  of  the  diversity  of 
human  languages,  and  his  comparisons  of  graphical  systems,  he  had 
been  led,  by  a different  process  of  reasoning,  to  results,  upon  the 
probability  of  the  rediscovery  of  a conjecturally  lost  alphabet,  iden- 
tical with  those,  to  which  I was  impelled  by  Egyptian  facts  and 
chronological  limitations.  My  humble  edifice  acquires  so  much 
stability,  trom  the  opinions  of  a gentleman  so  laborious  in  philological 
pursuits,  that,  at  my  solicitation,  he  has  favored  me  with  the  follow- 
ing letter : 

Philadelphia,  1st  Nov.  1842. 

My  Dear  Sir  : When  you  did  me  the  favor,  a few  days  ago,  to  read  to  me 
your  very  interesting  lecture  on  the  origin  and  language  of  the  Egyptians,  I 
expressed  to  you  my  gratification  at  finding  that  your  views  on  the  subject  ol 
the  invention  of  writing,  harmonized  with  some  that  had  shortly  before  occur- 
red to  myself.  As  we  have  arrived  at  the  same  result,  by  different  roads, 
you  have  suggested  that  a statement  by  each,  of  the  grounds  on  which  this 
common  result  of  our  reasonings  is  based,  might  be  of  advantage  in  the  way 
of  mutual  confirmation.  Although,  I conceive  that  your  arguments  as  stated 
in  your  lecture,  hardly  stand  in  need  of  support,  I readily  comply  with  your 
suggestion,  so  far  as  relates  to  a summary  of  the  philological  facts,  which 
seem  to  me  tolavor  the  views  that  you  have  taken. 

Three  great  nations,  differing  widely  in  language,  physical  characteristics 
and  institutions,  appear  almost  at  the  same  time,  on  the  theatre  of  the  world. 
Those  who  have  made  the  most  profound  researches  on  these  subjects,  as- 
sure us,  that  the  histories  which  may  be  called  authentic,  of  the  Chinese,  the 
Hindoos,  and  the  Egyptians,  can  be  traced  back,  each  on  its  separate  ground, 


to  within  a few  centuries  of  the  period  at  which  the  best  cbronologists  fix 
the  date  of  the  Flood.  Now,  it  is  remarkable,  that,  at  the  very  commencement 
of  their  annals  we  find  each  of  these  nations  in  possession  of  a system  id 
writing  so  far  perfected,  that  we  do  not  hear  of  any  improvement  made  by 
either  in  after  ages.  From  their  very  nature  it  is  indubitable,  that  they  are 
of  domestic  and  therefore  independent  origin  ; and  the  question  arises  as  to 
the  probability,  that  each  of  them  should  have  been  the  fruit  of  pure  and  un- 
assisted invention.  We  have,  on  our  own  continent,  the  example  of  two  na- 
tions, which  had  reached,  without  the  aid  of  extraneous  influences,  a state  ol 
civilization  fully  equal  to  that,  in  which  the  first  dawn  of  history  finds  any 
of  the  great  Asiatic  nations.  Now,  of  these  two  nations,  the  one  farthest 
advanced  in  the  arts,  the  Ptruvian,  had  no  system  of  writing  whatever;  the 
other,  the  Mexican,  possessed  a kind  of  mnemonics,  in  the  shape  of  pictures, 
which  served  to  remind  those,  who  had  been  previously  instructed  in  their 
meaning,  of  the  events  and  facts,  which  they  were  designed  to  commemorate. 
These  examples  would  not  lead  us  to  suppose,  that  the  invention  of  written 
characters,  representing  all  the  words  or  elementary  sounds  of  a language, 
was  a necessary  or  even  a likely  accompaniment  of  a nation’s  advance  in 
civilization. 

In  reading,  not  long  ago,  Mr.  Rockwell’s  account  of  his  voyage  in  the  Medi- 
terranean and  to  Liberia,  I was  struck  with  his  remark,  that  an  intelligent 
man,  of  the  Greyho  tribe  of  Africans,  near  the  colony,  had  invented  a com- 
plete syllahtc  alphabet  of  his  own  language,  in  consequence  of  hearing,  that 
foreign  nations  possessed  some  such  means  of  imprinting  their  words  on  pa- 
per. Mr.  R.  also  observes,  that  it  was  a similar  suggestion,  which  led  the 
famous  Cherokee  Cadmus,  Sequoyah,  to  the  invention  of  his  alphabet.  From 
these  facts,  the  influence  may  be  fairly  deduced,  that  though  the  idea  of 
written  characters  is  not  likely  to  occur  of  itself,  to  an  uninstrucled  mind  ; 
yet,  when  once  suggested,  it  may  easily  be  followed  out  to  the  completion  ol 
a system,  perfectly  adequate  to  the  wants  of  a language,  and  unsusceptible 
ofluttire  improvement. 

To  apply  these  inferences  to  the  cases  in  question  ; let  ns  suppose  (ns  we 
have  reason  to  believe)  that  the  Antediluvians  possessed  some  mode  of  pre- 
serving facts  and  occurrences  by  written  symbols.  It  may  have  been  a kind 
of  picture  writing,  like  the  Mexican,  of  mere  human  invention  ; or,  it  may 
have  been,  as  many  have  thought,  adivinely  revealed  alphabetic  writing.  In 
the  dispersion  of  families,  and  diversion  of  tongues,  wdiich  must,  on  any  am 
every  hypothesis,  have  taken  place,  soon  after  the  deluge,  the  written  char 
acter  was  probably  lost ; or,  ifretained  by  any,  it  would  only  be  in  that  familj 
with  the  genius  of  whose  language  it  happened  to  agree  : all  the  rest  would  In 
as  unenlightened  on  this  point,  as  were  the  Aztec  tribes  when  they  first 
spread  themselves  on  the  plains  of  Mexico;  with  the  exception,  that  they 
would,  in  all  probability,  have  preserved  the  tradition  ol  the  former  existence 
of  written  characters  ; and  this  tradition  it  would  be,  which,  acting  as  a sug. 
gestion  and  an  incitement  on  the  mind  of  some  man  of  superior  intelligence, 
among  a people  sufficiently  advanced  to  feel  the  need  of  such  an  art,  would 
lead,  first  to  the  idea,  and  then  to  the  construction  of  a system  of  writing. 
And  this  system,  as  thus  constructed,  would,  of  necessity,  be  one  exactly 
adapled  to  the  character  of  the  language  for  which  it  was  formed.  Such  is 
said  to  be  the  syllabic  alphabets  of  the  Greybo  and  Cherokee  sages.  Such, 
it  is  well  known,  are  the  lerigraphic  system  of  the  Chinese  (so  termed  by 
Mr.  Duponceau,  from  the  fact  that  each  word  in  the  language  is  represented 
hy  a distinct  character)  and  the  alphabetic  system  of  the  Sanscrit,  which 
bears  some  tokens  of  having  been  originally  firmed  on  a sy!labic  basis. 
Able  scholars  have  doubted,  whether,  with  all  the  lights  of  experience  and 
comparison,  which  we,  in  modern  times,  enjoy,  any  written  characters  could 
he  proposed,  by  which  the  peculiar  methods  which  these  two  languageshave 
employed  for  ages,  might  with  advantage  be  replaced.  How  far  this  assertion 
will  apply  to  the  ancient  Egyptians  ; and  whether  that  language  really  gained, 
by  the  substitution  of  the  Coptic  alphabet  fir  the  old  hieroglyphics,  you  are 
yourselfthe  best  judge.  And,  in  considering  this  quesnon,  we  might  partic- 
ularly refer  to  the  remarkable  power,  inherent  in  the  ancient  system,  of  ex- 
pressing by  one  set  of  characters,  all  the  various  dialects  spoken  in  the 
Nilotic  valley. 

I shall  be  happy,  if  these  few  and  hasty  suggestions  shall  he  esteemed  hy 
you  of  any  value,  in  confirming  the  views  to  which  you  have  been  previously 
led  hy  the  study  of  the  ancient  monuments  of  that  most  interesting  region. 

Believe  me,  my  dear  sir,  with  much  respect, 

Very  sincerely  yours. 

Geo.  R.  Gliddon,  Esq.  H.  HALE. 


Greek  and  Roman  writers  (according  to  Champollion  Figeac, 
Plato,  Tacitus,  Pliny,  Plutarch,  Diodorus  and  Varro,  with  others,) 
ascribe  to  Egypt  the  honor  of  inventing  alphabetical  writing — an 
honor,  which  earlier  writers,  whose  works  are  no  longer  extant,  and 
the  voice  of  oral  tradition,  had  consecrated  from  time  immemorial 
before  them.  Modern  criticism  has  recognized,  by  the  study  of  the 
Monuments,  that,  so  far  as  the  relative  antiquity  of  the  art  in  Egypt, 
compared  with  any  other  nations  is  concerned,  this  attribution  to 
Egypt  is  correct  and  indisputable  ; while  there  are  not  a few  alpha, 
bets,  that  may  be  traced  in  origin  to  early  intercourse  with  the  Valley 
of  the  Nile,  the  priority  in  civilization  of  whose  inhabitants  is  now 
irrevocably  determined. 

Early  Grecian  tradition  ascribed  to  Cadmus,  son  of  Agenor,  king 
of  Phoenicia,  the  introduction  of  alphabetic  letters  into  the  Pelopon- 
nesus. Cadmus  appears  to  have  lived  in  the  seventh  generation  be- 
fore the  Trojan  war;  which  event  belongs  to  the  twelfth  century 
before  Christ,  and  consequently  the  epoch  of  Cadmus  dates  about 
1500  B.  C.,  which,  in  Egyptian  annals,  is  comparatively  a modem 
date,  being  contemporary  with  the  middle  of  the  18th  dynasty. 
This  Cadmus  introduced  into  Greece  16  primitive  letters — a phonetic 
alphabet,  consisting  of  the  first  sixteen  primitive  vocal  articulations — 
KvpioXoytKr]  Sia  rcov  vyuirc or  ^rot^eitor — translated  by  Letronne,  “ Kvrio- 
logic,  according  to  the  first  alphabetic  or  phonetic  letters” — or  “serv- 
ing perfectly  to  denote  objects  by  alphabetic  signs.” 

These  first  alphabetic  signs  were  then  attributed  to  Hermes,  who 
is  our  Egyptian  Thoth  the  second  ! and  were  called,  by  the  Greeks, 
“ Phoenician  letters.”  To  the  primitive  sixteen  letters,  Paltimedes 
added  four;  and  subsequently  four  others  were  supplied  by  Simoni- 
des; thus  completing  the  24  letters  of  the  Greek  alphabet.  The  16 
Cadmean  letters  were,  A,  B,  F,  4,  E,  F,  I,  K,  A,  M,  N,  O,  IT.  P,  Z, 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


13 


T,  some  of  which  singularly  correspond  in  names  to  those  of  the 
Semitic  families  of  Hebrew,  Samaritan,  and  other,  to  the  parental 
Phoenician,  cognate  tribes  ; thus  evincing,  that  the  origin  of  the  Cad- 
mean  alphabet  is  not  Grecian,  but  Eastern  : and,  inasmuch  as  its 
affinities  are  all  Asiatic  it  may  be  termed  “ Ehcenico-Grecian.”  If, 
therefore,  we  show,  that  its  parental  source  derives  its  origin  from  an 
Egyptian  hieroglyphic,  as  has  been  demonstrated  by  Dr.  Lamb,  in 
respect  to  the  Hebrew  letters,  it  will  prove  how  much  Greece  is  in- 
debted to  Egypt  for  the  learning  of  her  worthies. 

It  is  a law  of  phonetic  hieroglyphics,  that  the  picture  of  a physical 
object  shall  give  the  sign  of  the  sound , with  which  its  name  begins 
in  the  Egyptian  tongue.  Thus,  a lion,  whose  Egyptian  name  was 
“Labo,”  stood  for  the  letter  L,  in-4rk-roglyphics ; as  it  might  stand, 
in  our  language,  to  represent  the  initial  letter  of  the  designatory  title 
of  that  animal,  whose  name  with  us  is  lion.  Now,  the  same  prin- 
cip'e  is  distinctly  discernible  in  the  Hebrew,  Arabic,  Samaritan, 
Phoenician,  and  other  Semitic  tongues  ! The  ancient  Hebrew  letter 
Li — or  L — was  the  initial  letter  of  their  name  for  lion — “ Labi 
while,  in  shape,  it  is  only  an  abbreviation  of  the  figure  of  a recum- 
bent lion,  a pure  Egyptian  hieroglyph.  The  B,  in  Hebrew,  is  the 
initial  letter  of  the  word  “ Beth,”  meaning  “ a house”— which  is  its 
name  ; and  there  is  even  a resemblance  to  be  traced  between  the 
form  of  the  letter  “ Beth,”  and  the  outline  of  an  oriental  house  with 

a flat  roof ! I will  exemplify  this  fact  by  the  name  of  the  letter 

AD — in  the  ancient  Hebrew — which,  besides  being  probably  the 
first  articulate  sound  uttered  by  Adam,  signifies  “ a Man,”  as  also 
“ red  earth,”  out  of  which  man  was  moulded  by  the  divine  “Potter” 
— see  Isaiah,  lxiv.,  8.  The  transitions  are  herein  made  clear. 


The  letter  A in  Hebrew,  meaning  man,  is  thus  traced  to  its  Egyp- 
tian parent.  The  same  holds  good  with  the  entire  Hebrew’  alphabet, 
but  is  peculiarly  evident  in  their  letters  G,  N,  P,  R and  T ; all  can 
be  respectively  traced  to  the  initial  letters  of  objects,  whose  names 
in  sound  corresponded  to  the  initial  value  of  the  letters,  as  the  form 
of  the  letters  still  preserves  a resemblance  to  the  pictorial  hiero- 
glyphic of  the  objects  whence  they  are  derived.  Nor  does  it  seem 
improbable  that  Moses,  who  was  “ learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the 
Egyptians,”  should  have  introduced  into  the  Hebrew  writings  some 
of  those  forms  and  ideas,  he  had  necessarily  contracted  in  regard  to 
this,  and  other  subjects,  during  his  education  at  Heliopolis. 

It  is  likewise  a curious  chronological  coincidence,  that  the  15th 
century  B.  C.,  witnessed  the  Exodus  of  the  Israelites  from  Egypt, 
and  their  organization  into  an  orderly  community  by  Moses— the  in- 
troduction of  the  present  Hebrew  alphabet,  in  lieu  of  the  previous 
character,  whatever  that  was  — the  importation  of  the  primitive 
alphabet  from  Phoenicia  (at  that  period  a province  tributary  to  the 
Pharaohs,  and  overrun  by  their  armies)  into  Greece,  by  Cadmus,  and 
the  foundation  of  Boeotian  Thebes,  with  its  oriental  mysteries  and 
oracles — the  emigration  of  Danaus,  who  was  perhaps  the  brother  of 
our  Ramses  4th  : (Sethos-riEgyptus,)  and  who  founded  the  kingdom  of 
the  Danai,  at  Argos,  where  colossal  ruins  of  the  Egypto-Pelasgic  period 
again  point  to  their  Nilotic  sources — and,  with  less  historical  cer- 
tainty, but  with  some  probability,  may  we  also  trace  the  foundation 
of  Athens  itself  to  an  Egyptian  colony,  led  by  Cecrops  from  Sais, 
within  half  a century  of  the  preceding  events,  that  so  strongly  mark 
the  period  of  the  15th  century  B.  C. ; the  Augustan  age  of  Pharaonic 
renown. 

Palamedes,  king  of  Euboea,  gave  to  the  Greeks  4 additional  letters, 
O,  S,  <t>,  X,  to  supply  deficiencies  in  the  Cadmean  alphabet;  and 
Simonides  subsequently  furnished  the  4 other  signs,  Z,  H,  T,  fl, 
which  completed  the  24  letters  of  the  ancient  Greek  alphabet. 

Now,  the  distinct  articulations  of  phonetic  hieroglyphics  may  be 
resolved  into  16  sounds,  represented  by  16  Egyptian  letters  (with 
their  homophones)  which  are  identical,  in  value,  with  the  16  primi- 
tive Cadmean  characters!  and  these  16  primitive  signs  represent  the 
16  distinct  simple  or  elementary  sounds  of  the  human  voice;  because, 
all  the  other  alphabetic  sounds  are  more  or  less  compound,  and  are 
,rediicihle  into  their  respective  primitive  elements ! 

Thiits  the  fact,  that  the  Greek  and  Phoenician  alphabets  contained, 
at  first,  .only  16  distinct  letters,  is  not  only  established  by  analogy 
and  historical  testimony,  but  is  comformable  to  nature  itself. 

The  Greeks  and  other  nations,  completed  the  powers  of  their 
alphabets,  by  .adding  other  letters  to  represent  compound  sounds. 
The  Egyptians,  without  extending  their  phonetic  system,  in  number 


of  letters,  appear  to  have  arrived  at  the  same  result,  by  giving  to 
each  original  sign  a double  or  a triple  power,  as  for  instance ; 

Arabic. 

f 

J/  in  hieroglyphics  stands  in  Arabic  and  in  Coptic, 


6 = 1, 


Khei — our  Kh 


I 


^ _ yi_m  -our  11  l 3 distinct  sounds. 


• | 

1^=UJ  Shei — our  Sh  j 


the  first  of  which  we  have  not  the  power  of  expressing,  but  conven- 
tionally, in  our  letters  ; nor  can  many  Europeans  pronounce  it  dis- 
tinctly. It  exists  in  Arabic — as  in  “ Khiiss  ” lettuce — or  “ Khitm  ” 
a seal ; distinct  from  II,  as  in  “ Hhris,”  a guard — or  “ Hitlee,”  my  soul. 

And  when,  in  Roman  times,  the  hieroglyphic,  hieratic  and  de- 
motic forms  of  writing  were  abolished  ; it  was  found  necessary  to 
add  to  the  24  Greek  letters,  7 others,  purely  Egyptian,  to  enable  the 
denizens  of  Egypt  to  represent  in  writing  the  sounds  of  their  tongue, 
and  thus  the  present  Coptic  alphabet  of  31  letters  was  formed.  The 
seven  Egyptian  letters  of  the  Coptic  alphabet,  are  taken  from  the 
demotic  texts  ; viz. 


— Shei — equivalent  to  our  Sh 


q-re 


“ rh 


— Khei  “ 

<1 

Kh 

<5  —Hori 

it 

n 

— Sjansja  “ 

It 

Sj 

— Sseema  “ 

M 

Ss 

‘i'-n.i 

<( 

T 

I regret,  that  my  limits  do  not  permit  my  going  further  into  the 
interesting  subject  of  the  ancient  use  and  modes  of  writing.  Enough 
has  been  said  to  show,  that  early  analogies  point  to  the  valley  of  the 
Nile,  as  the  cradle,  if  not  the  birthplace,  of  this,  no  less  than  of  all 
other  arts. 

A small,  though  excellent  work,*  published  in  1841  in  London, 
(from  which  I have  gleaned  several  points  of  the  present  discourse, 
and  in  the  next  chapter  have  extracted  some  ancient  texts,)  seems  to 
infer,  that  alphabetic  signs  were  exclusively  preserved  by  the  descend, 
ants  of  Shem,  among  other  advantages  accruing  to  them  from  Noah’s 
prophetic  blessing ; and  then  expatiates  upon  the  “ unhappy  sons  if 
Mizraim,  the  son  of  Ham,”  who  lost  their  primitive  language,  and 
with  it  the  alphabet! 

This  may  be  a mode  of  speaking,  but  it  is  inconsistent  with  the 
Bible,  and  is  utterly  overthrown  by  history;  for,  if  these  unhajyjjy 
descendants  of  Ham  were  under  a curse,  how  was  it,  if  Ham  be  the 
parent  of  the  Egyptians,  that  these  unfortunate  people  were  the  most 
civilized  of  antiquity  ? how  was  it,  that  this  accursed  race  enjoyed, 
for  2500  years,  the  fairest  portion  of  the  earth  ? how  came  it  that 
these  unhappy  people  held  the  descendants  of  Shem  in  bondage,  or 
in  tribute,  during  1000  years  before  Cambyse3,  B.  C.  525  ? 

This  is  another  popular  fallacy.  The  curse  was  not  on  Ham.  It 
passed  over  him,  and  fell  upon  Canaan.  But,  as  I shall  hereinafter 
demonstrate,  there  was  no  ban  on  the  Mizraimites,  or  Egyptians,  till 
after  times. 


CHAPTER  THIRD. 

The  reader  will  not  forget,  that  Oriental  languages  of  ancient  days, 
in  sound,  as  well  as  in  character,  are  not  far  removed  from  the  mod- 
ern ; although,  to  an  uninitiated  ear,  their  irttonations  and  articula- 
tions may  appear  extravagant  or  harsh. 

We  have  all  of  us  seen  vocabularies,  wherein,  by  means  of  our 
alphabetic  letters,  the  words  of  eastern  languages  are  presented  to 
our  eye,  but  never  to  our  ear.  No  dependence  can  be  placed  on  the 
accuracy  of  any  one  of  them,  however,  unless  we  are  previously 
assured  of  the  knowledge  of  the  European  writer ; who  in  most 
cases  is  lamentably  deficient.  “ Guide  Books,”  for  travellers  to  the 
Levant,  are  for  sale  everywhere  ; yet,  it  is  curious  to  test  the  accu- 
racy of  the  so-called  Arabic  vocabularies  attached  to  some  of  them. 
“Usborne’s  Guide  to  Egypt,”  London,  1840;  price  9 shillings  ster- 
ling ; among  its  other  absurdities,  contains  one  of  these  puerile  and 
valueless  “ word-books.”  But,  for  “ true  Corinthian  brass,”  com. 

* The  “Antiquities  of  Egypt,”  1 vol.  8vo.  London,  1841,  published  by  the  " Religious 
Tract  Society.”  This,  ns  well  as  the  “ Illustrations  of  the  Bible  from  the  Monuments 
of  Egypt.”  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  VV.C.  Taylor.  London  1838—1  vol.  12mo.,  I warmly  recnm 
mend  to  tlie  reader's  perusal. 


ANCIENT  EG  VPT. 


19 


mend  me  to  that  pompous  “ English  and  Arabic  (?)  vocabulary,” 
obtainable  at  the  enormous  price  of  12  shillings,  in  a quarto,  styled 
“ Hand-book  to  India  and  Egypt,”  London,  1841 ; wherein,  not  only 
ore  all  the  exploded  errors,  regarding  Egyptian  subjects,  perpetuated 
with  marvellous  fidelity;  but,  under  the  name  of  Arabic,  is  palmed 
off  an  aggregation  of  trash,  one  third  of  which  is  obsolete  Arabic, 
incorrectly  spelled  ; another  third  may  be  Hindostanee,  Bengalee,  or 
other  Indian  idiom ; and  the  remainder  is  literally  gibberish. 

The  only  “ Arabic  and  English”  vocabulary,  that  can  be  scrupu- 
lously relied  on,  is  the  one  appended  to  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson’s  “ Topo- 
graphy of  Thebes,”  1835  ; an  invaluable  work,  now  out  of  print. 

Unless  we  know,  by  ear,  the  foreign  sounds  expressed  by  our  con- 
ventional combinations  of  letters,  it  is  vain  to  think  of  tracing  correct 
philological  affinities.  A most  amusing  catalogue  could  be  made, 
in  selections  from  modern  European  literature,  of  the  ludicrous  fail- 
ures of  travellers  in  Arabic  alone.  Errors  are  perfectly  excusable  in 
those  who  make  no  pretensions ; but,  for  a man  to  have  the  puerile 
vanity  to  write  in  English  the  words  of  an  Eastern  language,  when, 
by  30  doing,  he  proves  that  he  knows  nothing  about  it,  is  suicidal  to 
say  the  least,  while  his  folly  misleads  his  successors  ; whence,  to- 
gether with  carelessness'  of  observation,  in  great  measure,  is  deri- 
ved that  general  misinformation  about  Egypt,  ancient  and  modern, 
which  prevails  everywhere  at  the  present  day. 

In  our  alphabet,  we  have  not  the  power  to  express  a ♦ “ Kh,” 
ora  ' “Gh,”  still  less  an  “Ain,”  nor  can  many  Eur  opeans 

eve  -S'"  r acquire  their  true  pronunciation.  ( ]| 

M^w».r.  Lane,  the  most  eminent  Arabic  savan  of  the  day,  and  the 
estimable  author  of  the  “ Modern  Egyptians”  (the  most  learned  and 
accurate  of  all  works  on  the  present  inhabitants  of  Cairo  and  of 
Egypt  in  general)  has  been  the  first  to  establish  a system  whereby 
Arabic  can  be  written  in  our  letters ; but,  unless  the  reader  hears 
the  sound,  he  can  never  acquire  its  phonetic  value.  Our  alphabet 
will  not  express  all  the  Oriental  intonations ; nor  can  their  alphabets 
express  all  of  ours. 

It  is  much  the  same  in  music.  We  cannot  approach  Arabian 
intonations,  whether  in  instrumental,  or  vocal  melody ; and,  be  it 
observed,  unless  a man  has  an  ear  for  music,  he  can  no  more  learn, 
or  duly  perceive  the  niceties  of  foreign,  and  particularly  of  Eastern 
languages,  than  he  could  sing  correctly  without  a voice. 

I have  said,  that  we  cannot  express  in  our  letters  many  Oriental 
articulations,  without  a conventional  system  ; as  kh  for  “ Khey 
and  gh  for  “ Ghain  the  sound  to  be  qpnveyed  by  mouth.  No 
combination  of  ours  can  express  the  “ ll”  of  that  extraordinary  lan- 
guage, discovered  as  still  extant  in  Hadramaut,  by  the  profound 
Orientalist,  Mons.  F.  Fresnel,  French  Consul  at  Djedda  ; which, 
while  it  somewhat  resembles  the  “ ll”  of  the  Welsh,  can  be  articu- 
lated only  on  the  right  side  of  the  mouth — being  something  between 
“ llw  a whistle,  and  a spit  ! 

I will  endeavor  to  illustrate,  how  impossible  it  is  for  Orientals  to 
express  our  European  intonations  by  their  letters. 

An  English  friend  of  mine,  in  the  Levant,  who  is  a profound  Turk- 
ish scholar,  had  two  native  Ottoman  secretaries.  Being  desirous  of 
testing  the  capabilities  of  the  Turkish  character,  for  the  rendering  of 
an  English  phrase,  he  sent  one  of  them  out  of  his  bureau  one  morn- 
ing; and  dictating  to  the  other  the  following  line,  desired  him  to 
write  i'  in  his  national  letters,  so  as  to  produce  the  English  sound,  as 
correctly  as  possible.  The  sentence  was, 

“ Drag  the  swindling  scoundrel  to  the  pump.”  I 


This  digression  will  serve  to  show  how  difficult  it  is,  in  European 
or  Eastern  alphabets,  to  express  each  other’s  respective  languages ; 
and  to  preface  the  remark,  that  we  know  not  the  precise  articulations 
of  the  ancient  Coptic,  or  Egyptian  tongue,  as  we  are  ignorant  of  the 
sound;  for  the  speakers^ with  the  language,  perished  in  by-gone  ages. 

I now  proceed  to  the  general  principles  of  the  Ancient  Egyptian 
Language,  as  determined  by  the  best  hieroglyphical  authorities  up.  to 
the  close  of  1841.  I shall  pass  rapidly  over  the  subjects,  explaining 
each  “ with  as  much  brevity  as  is  consistent  with  perspicuity.” 
It  would  be  tedious,  as  before  stated,  to  go  back  to  the  doubts  and 
disputes  of  1825  ; and  my  object  is  to  give  a generally-correct,  rather 
than  a detailed  view  of  Egyptian  studies  at  the  present  day.  The 
difficulty  of  the  task  assumed  lies  in  the  appropriate  condensation  ; 
and  if  this  particular  chapter  be  found  less  amusing  to  the  general 
reader  than  the  others,  it  will  not  be  the  less  instructive  ; while  its 
insertion  is  absolutely  indispensable  to  the  clear  apprehension  of  the 
sequel.  In  the  words  of  Champollion — “ the  subject  banishes  all 
ornament  : in  the  absence  of  this  advantage,  which  would  doubtless 
contribute  to  sustain  your  attention,  I would  invoke  the  high  im- 
portance of  our  inquiries,”  no  less  than  the  reader’s  indulgent  pa- 
tience. 


The  Language  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  in  '.he  ancient  Cop.ic, 
prior  to  the  introduction  of  foreign  engraftments  ; which  may  have 
been  imported  in  part,  as  early  as  PstMETicus  the  1st,  about  B.C. 
650.  Before  that  time,  it  was  an  autocthon,  or  indigenous  tongue  ; 
and  the  same  idioms  were  orally  in  use  from  the  unnumbered  ages 
anterior  to  the  pyramids,  down  to  the  above-named  monarch  of  the 
26th  Saitic  dynasty.  It  ceased  to  be  orally  preserved  among  the 
Copts,  the  present  mongrel  descendants  of  a high-caste  ancestry, 
about  a hundred  years  ago.  They  still  read  it,  with  Arabic  trans- 
lations in  the  context,  in  the  churches  of  the  Coptic  community  in 
Egypt. 

In  construction,  it  is  monosyllabic  in  all  its  primitive  words.  Its 
polysyllabic  words  are  compounded  of  one  or  more  linguistical  roots; 
and  these  can  generally  be  resolved  into  distinct  monosyllables.  Its 
syntax  is  in  the  logical  order  of  the  French  language.  It  contains  a 
certain  number  of  Semitic  words,  due  to  early  intercourse  with 
Arabian  nations,  as  well  as  to  its  primitive  Asiatic  origin.* 

Dr.  Leipsius,  in  his  “Paldographia,”  1834,  established  very  curious 
relations  between  Sanscrit  and  Hebrew,  such  as  to  leave  no  doubt 
of  the  existence  of  a common  though  undeveloped  germ  in  both. 
But  still  more  valuable  were  the  results  of  this  erudite  German  eth- 
nologist in  Coptic  ; for,  in  his  letter  to  the  Chevr.  Baron  Bunsen,  Jan 
1835,  he  established,  that  the  ancient  Coptic  is  no  longer  placed  in 
linguistical  solitude  ; but  that  it  enters  into  the  vast  circumference  of 
Semitic  and  Indo-Germanic  languages  ; and  that  it  is  linked  with 
each  by  points  of  actual  contact,  grounded  on  the  essential  structure 
and  most  necessary  forms  of  all  three.  He  considers  that,  in  the 
numerals  especially,  so  strong  a similarity  exists  between  the  Indo- 
Germanic  and  Semitic  languages  with  the  more  ancient  Egyptian 
system,  that  he  deems  the  numeral  figures  of  the  Egyptians  to  havo 
been  originally  transported  from  Egypt  to  India,  and  thence,  being 
carried  into  Arabia  by  early  commercial  intercourse,  were  by  tho 
Arabs  transmitted  to  us,  and  as  such  are  by  us  termed  Arabic ; al, 
though,  by  the  Arabs  this  system  of  numeration  is  still  called  Hindee, 
Indian. 


The  man  wrote  it  and  having  heard  the  sound,  read  it  correctly  in 
English. 

He  was  then  sent  out  of  the  room  ; and  the  other  secretary  who 
had  not  heard  the  sound,  was  summoned,  and  desired  to  read  it. 
This  he  did  freely, 

“ Direk  zee  Asevinedelink  Asekoneoerel  tev  zee  Pomep  1” 
and  this  was  the  nearest  approximation  to  the  English  that  the 
Turkish  alphabet  would  admit  of. 

“ In  sober  sadness,”  I can  assure  the  reader,  that  it  is  precisely  as 
ludicrous  to  an  Eastern  ear,  to  hear  a foreigner  read  what  is  called 
Arabic,  from  an  “ English  and  Arabic  vocabulary”  written  with  our 
alphabet. 

Some  curious  exemplifications  of  the  real  mode  of  sounding  some 
ancient  Greek  articulations,  may  be  afforded  by  hieroglyphical  com- 
parisons, which  would  show  that,  in  sound,  the  modern  language  as 
spoken  at  this  day  has  not  varied  much  from  the  ancient.  And, 
what  can  be  more  uncouth  to  hellenic  auricular  nerves,  than  to  hear 
an  English  Demosthenes  begin  his  oration,  with  “ Oi  andres  Atlie. 
tutioi Yemen  of  Athens!  Or  to  hear  poor  Homer’s  hexameter 
twisted  into  the  sentence,  (so  often  quoted  to  exemplify  the  propriety 
of  Greek  linguistical  adaptations !)  “ Polu  floisboio  thaldsees." 

Equally  absurd  is  the  English  mode  of  reading  Latin  ; and  equally 
unnatural  to  an  Italian  ear  are  our  intonations  of  this  language,  when 
in  lieu  of  the  open,  manly,  and  sonorous  cadences  of  “ Pater  noster, 
qui  es  in  coelo,”  we  shut  our  teeth,  and  pronounce  it,  “ Payta  nosta 
qui  eez  in  setlo  !'■ 


Like  all  primitive  tongues,  the  Egyptian  proceeded  by 
imitation;  or  by  giving  a sound  in  imitation  of  the  ob- 
ject, or  idea,  intended.  Thus,  the  name  of  an 
Yd,  from  his  bray  ; 

Modce,  from  his  roar  ; 

E’he,  from  her  low  ; 

Croor,  from  his  croak; 

Chdoo,  from  her  mew  ; 

Purr,  from  his  grunt  ; 

Petepep,  from  its  peculiar  cry  ; Arabice,  “ Iled- 
hed,”  (like  our  Whip-poor- Will;) 

Serpent  “ Hoff,  from  its  hiss. 

Mr.  Lane’s  exquisite  translation  of  the  “ Thousand  and  one 
Nights,”  gives  some  beautiful  instances,  in  Arabic,  of  the  words 
attributed  to  the  cries  of  birds.  As,  the  “ Umree  Hegdzee,”  or  Ara- 
bian turtle  dove,  in  its  sweet  coo,  repeats  “Yd  kerdem,  yit  Alldh,” 
O most  merciful  God  ! 

In  ancient  Coptic,  the  same  echoing  principle  is  recognizable  in 
verbs;  thus, 

Sensen,  to  sound  ; 

Thophtheph,  to  spit; 

Owodjwedj,  to  masticate ; 


* While  delivering  my  first  course  of  Lectures  at  Boston,  a circumstance  occurred  in 
regard  to  the  dispersion  of  Languages,  which  I deem  worth  mentioning,  as  it  may 
serve  for  a clue  in  philological  connections.  1 was  explaining  the  pictorial  scene,  well- 
known  as  that  of  the“  brickmakcrs ,”  and  mentioned  that  the  hieroglyphic  word  lor 
bricks,  is  the  Coptic  tobi,  preserved  in  Egypt,  by  the  Arabs.  in  their  name  took.  Alter 
the  lecture  was  finished,  a gentleman,  who  said  he  had  resitted  many  years  at  the  band- 
wich  Islands,  stepped  up  and  told  me,  that  in  Polynesia  the  native  name  for  bricks  a 
tobc. 


IL>>' 


LO 


Ass  was 
Lion  “ 
Cow  “ 
Frog  “ 
Cat  “ 
Pig  “ 
Hoopoo  “ 


20 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


Teltel,  to  let  water  fall  drop  by  drop.  The  same  word  is  still 
used  in  Arabic. 

Krapjkradj,  to  grind  one's  teeth. 

Ropjf.edj,  to  rub. 

Omk,  to  swallow;  so  that,  in  swallowing,  all -nations  speak  Coptic  ! 


Also  by  assimilation,  as 


Bridj,  lightning. 

Lalt,  to  rejoice. ; as  in  the  Arab  song  of  “ Doos’.ya -lel-lee.' 

See  Modern  Egyptians,  Vol.  II.  p.  83. 

Abstract  ideas  were  expressed  often  by  compounded  roots  ; as  for 
example,  the  word  “ Het,”  heart,  became 
Het-chf.m,  little  heart,  L e.  timorous. 


Har  jhi-Het,  slow  heart, 

Ssaci  Het,  high  heart, 
Het-nasht,  hard  heart, 
Ouom-Het,  eating  one's  heart, 
Thot-Het,  mixing  one's  heart, 
Meh-Het , filling  one's  heart, 


patient. 

proud. 

inclement. 

repenting. 

persuasive. 

satiating. 


Although  possessed  of  three  colloquial  dialects,  the  writing  chosen 
to  express  the  language  (being  adapted  to  all  these  verbal  inflec- 
tions) is  another  evidence  of  the  laborious  intelligence  that  presided 
over  every  Egyptian  institution.  It  was  indeed  a country  of  wisdom, 
rule,  and  systematic  order,  wherein  nothing  was  left  to  chance. 

The  system  of  writing  may  be  divided  into  primitive  and  second, 
ary — the  one  being  purely  hieroglypiiical,  with  its  two  derivatives, 
which  wjs  the  most  ancient  method — the  other  the  modern,  or  the 
Coptic.  It  is  only  of  the  former  we  are  treating. 

The  learned  Leipsius,  in  the  “ Annals  of  Archaeological  Corres- 
pondence”— Rome,  1837  : maintains  that  the  Egyptians  had  two 
colloquial  dialects  in  use,  which  were  very  distinct — 

1st — the  i epa  y\woaa,  or  upa  SiaXteroo,  which  is  the  classical  or 
sacerdotal — 

2d — the  ko in  hiaXeKvoo,  which  is  the  popular  dialect. 

The  sacred,  or  hieroglyphical  writing,  as  well  as  the  hieratic,  of  all 
ages,  presents  to  our  view  the  sacerdotal  or  classical  dialect;  but  the 
demotic,  or  popular  writing,  as  well  as  the  Coptic  literature,  presents 
the  pojiular  dialect. 

This  is  the  main  reason  why  the  modem  Coptic,  which  preserves 
the  ancient  popular  dialect,  will  not  always  translate  words  written 
in  the  classical  idiom,  and  in  the  anterior  hieroglyphic  and  hieratic 
character. 

lnueed,  St.  Clement, of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  194,  is  the  only 

one*  of  the  early  Greek  writers,  who  deigned  to  take  notice  of 


Huodutas  nnd  Diudoru*  pidtad  up  a few  rumors  of  the  mod:  of  writm*,  maunder- 
standings  as  usual 


Egyptian  writings ; and  the  good  sense  of  his  short  description  con- 
cerning them  is  confirmed  by  modern  research.  In  his  “ Stromatee” 

he  says, 

“ Those  who,  among  the  Egyptians,  receive  instruction,  leam  first 
that  species  of  Egyptian  writing  which  is  termed  epistolographic — 
i.  e.  our  demotic ; they  next  learn  the  hieratic,  or  sacerdotal ; and 
lastly,  the  hieroglyphic,  or  sacred.” 

So  that  an  Egyptian,  in  St.  Clement’s  day,  might  have  been  able  to 
read  and  write  the  demotic,  without  its  necessarily  following  that  he 
should  be  versed  in  the  other  two  ; in  the  same  manner,  that  Orientals 
may  be  familiar  with  the  Sulus  or  Reihhni  characters  of  the  Turkish, 
without  being  able  to  write,  or  even  read,  a document  written  in  the 
Diviini  or  Kyrma  styles.  This  observation,  however,  will  better  apply 
to  the  Egyptian  scribes,  in  the  days  succeeding  “ Haphre" — (“Ap. 
ries” — Pharaoh  Hophra,  of  Jeremiah  xxvii.  to  xliv.:  2nd  Kings  xx. : 
and  2nd  Chronicles  xxxvi. : whose  name,  in  hieroglyphics,  is  also 
“ Remesto” — the  abominable  Pharaoh) — B.  C.  569 : when  the  demotic 
writing  may  have  been  first  introduced  ; because,  before  that  period, 
the  graphical  styles  appear  to  have  been  limited  to  the  hieratic  and 
the  hieroglyphic,  until  the  eighteenth  dynasty,  or  B.  C.  1800 — pre. 
viously  to  which  time,  it  is  uncertain  if  the  hieratic  existed;  so  far  as 
I,  who  am  now  far  away  from  the  vortex  of  discovery,  have  been 
able  to  learn.  Monsieur  E.  Prisse,  however,  a learned  hieroglyphs 
cal  pioneer,  informs  me,  in  a recent  private  letter,  that  he  has  found 
a hieratic  papyrus  of  a new  king  of  the  1st.  Memphite  dynasty! 
If  the  king  can  be  clearly  identified,  which  I confess  my  present 
inability  to  comprehend,  this  fact  will  carry  back  hieratic  writing, 
no  less  than  chronology,  unnumbered  centuries  before  the  Memphite 
Pyramids ! Rumors  have  since  reached  me  that  Dr.  Leipsius’  pre. 
sent  pyramidal  researches  will  confirm  Manetho’s  early  arrangement, 
and  produce  a vast  accession  of  interesting  historical  facts,  concern- 
ing the  regal  builders  of  these  mausolea,  as  well  as  their  house, 
holds. 

The  ancient  writing  of  the  Egyptians  was  therefore  divided  into 
three  distinct  classes — viz  : the  hieroglyphic  or  “ sacred  sculptured 
characters,”  which  was  the  original,  and  is  the  monumental  method — 
the  hieratic  or  “ sacerdotal,”  which  is  an  abbreviative  method,  used 
by  the  scribes  and  priests  in  literary  pursuits,  in  current  use  prior  to 
1500  B.  C. ; and  which,  written  from  right  to  left,  is  a tachygraphy 
or  shorthand  of  the  preceding — and  the  demotic,  styled  in  the 
Greek  translation  on  the  Rosetta  Stone  enchorial;  which,  coining 
probably  into  general  use  after  the  Persian  conquest,  B.  C.  525,  is  a 
still  more  expeditious  style  of  writing.  It  is  written  from  right  to 
left.  The  modern  Coptic  is,  however,  traced  from  left  to  right,  a a 
the  Christianized  Egyptians  followed  the  Greeks  in  alphabet  aad . 
graphical  system. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


21 


The  following  alphabet  will  furnish  a general  idea  of  the  hiero- 
glyphical  homophones,  as  well  as  of  the  phonetic  value  of  each  sym 

COPTIC  ALPHABET. 


tk.  6. 

Alpha 

A 

B I 

Vida 

B 

r ? 

Gamma 

Gh 

A,  E,  I,  0,  U,  • 

21  Dalda 

D 

e e 

Ei 

E 

V,  z. 

Zida 

Z 

B 

H H 

Hida 

Eb 

© ■©■ 

Thida 

Th 

K- 

I r 

Iauda 

1 

K k 

Kabba 

K 

Sx  * 

Laulu 

L 

T,  Th,  D ■ 

U xx 

Mi 

M 

K if 

Ni 

N 

L,  R 

g E 

Ext 

X 

0 o 

0 

0 

M. 

n n 

Pi 

p 

P P 

Ro 

R 

C C 

Sima 

S 

N" 

Tt 

Dau 

D.T. 

T T 

Ue 

U.V 

F,  Ph,  P, 

Phi 

Ph 

X x 

Chi 

Hh 

w v 

Epsi 

Ps 

S 

UJO) 

0 

0 

ujp 

Shei 

Sh 

Sr,  Ss 

<4 

Fei 

F 

PH,  V,  Uo 

h b 

Khei 

Kh 

Z>  a 

Hori 

H 

Kh,  Sh,  X 

% * 

Sjansja 

Sr 

(T 

Ssima 

8s 

Sh 

1*  + 

Dei 

T 

Hh,  H 

bol.  I append  to  this  table  a Coptic  alphabet  also. 
HIEROGLYPHIC  ALPHABET. 


X 


• • • • • 

-.I.A 

— r 

. t 

.T  • 

«..X. 

.T.V. 

• 

.yf. t . 

Y • 

• 

VI- 

^ A A.  t=> 

• Jik  • • 1 n » • • • 

I . — .^5^  . \ ^ i, . 

T-1! 

* + 

• • B • 

f 3BE 

• • • 

cd.£  .S— * 

✓WWN  (- 

V" 

n?- n 

»\T. 

.A 

fh . 

—■[ 

W- 

« 

■a3  . V *"V  . J 'Sf 

K 

1 

A % 

• • 

>v.«c.S 

..  t .t 

© • 1 .-”5- 

TlflT.  EJBOi  .man 

— ./HK. 

fe-.  m.  - -444-  * = 

l 

J.ra.ra., • v ■ a 

**JT.  «.!.«-»  .^./h 

• 

9 

Of  the  hieratic  and  demotic  I have  made  no  study,  but  the  sue-  1 British  Museum,  commemorating  the  campaigns  of  Ramses  3d — 
cceding  inscriptions  will  indicate  their  appearance.  It  is  the  first  line  gesostris — and  his  victories  over  several  Asiatic  nations,  far  remote 
of  a poem  in  the  hieratic  character,  *rom  a papyrus  now  in  the  J from  Egypt.  Its  date  may  be  about  1550  B.  C. 


29 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


HIERATIC. 


ftr&f. 


*£>  ri|^3 

*f£u^  ^ 'J/5l)*z8J 


TRANSLATION. 

“The  wicked  race  of  the  country  of  Scythia  * **  * with  many  king- 
doms * * * * ihe  soldiers  of  the  country  of  Ireto,  of  the  country  of  Maono, 
of  the  country  of  Toni,  of  the  country  of  ICeshkush,  &c. 

It  proceeds  with  the  names  of  countries,  the  geography  of  which 
Is  unknown. 

DEMOTIC  or  ENCHORIAL. 


f'c-tl 

vf/b-it/**  vj.fP 

vA]/  X Off  / 6>\f  M 


This  is  from  a papyrus  in  the  Museum  of  Turin. 

TRANSLATION. 

“ In  the  38th  year,  on  the  18th  of  the  month  of  Athyr,  of  the  rei?n  of  the 
sovereigns  Ptolemy  and  Cleopatra  his  sister;  the  children  of  Ptolemy  and 
Cleopatra,  gods  Epiphanes.” 


J — Articles  of  dress  or  costume — as  helmets,  collars,  shoes,  6c c. 
K — Furniture,  arms,  and  ensigns — as  thrones,  bows,  sceptres,  &c. 
L — Household  utensils — as  vases,  bowls,  knives,  &c. 

M — Instruments  relating  to  arts  and  trades — as  a saw, 
. hatchet,  blowpipe,  &c. 

N — Edifices  and  buildings — as  temples,  obelisks,  houses, 
boats,  See. 

O — Various  geometrical  forms — as  squares,  ovals,  angles, 
circles,  segments,  &c. 

P — Monstrous  orfabulous  Images — as  a Hawk  with  a human 
head.  Sphinx — a lion's  body  with  a man's,  a ram’s,  or 
hawk’s  head — men,  with  the  heads  of  animals — and 
other  unnatural  combinations ; all  conveying  however, 
some  metaphorical,  allegorical,  or  mystical  signification. 
The  exact  number  of  the  hieroglyphical  figures  not  being  yet 
ascertained,  the  complete  amount  of  varieties  used  by  the  Egyptians 
cannot  be  positively  defined.  Approximately,  their  number  may  be 
set  down  at  900,  and  time  will  develop  a very  few  more. 

Sculptured  hieroglyp’hics  were  executed  in  “Intaglio,”  in  “Rilievo,” 
or  in  “ Intaglio  rilevato.”  They  were  frequently  painted,  in  minor 
structures,  without  being  sculptured ; but  were  rarely  sculptured  on 
public  monuments  (save  perhaps  on  obelisks)  without  being  also 
painted.  In  writing  they  were  sometimes  colored  or  illuminated, 
but  usually  only  in  black  or  red.  The  colors  given  to  each  symbol 
were  not  arbitrary  on  the  part  of  the  artist,  but  were  applied 
according  to  sys'ematic  rules,  more  or  less  consistent  with 
the  nature  of  the  object — thus,  the  Heavens  were  painted 
blue — the  Earth  red — Man  as  follows  ; Egyptian  males  in  red 
as  the  most  honorable  color — meaning  symbolically,  the  “heat 
of  fire,”  and  the  “ male  principle” — Egyptian  females,  in  yel- 
low, symbolizing  the  “ lightof  fire,”  and  the  “ female  principle” 
— Other  nations  were  depicted  as  nearly  as  the  artist  could 
approach  their  true  color — as  Asiatics  in  various  shades  of  flesh 
color;  Berbers  in  brown  of  divers  hues — Negros  in  black. 

Quadrupeds,  birds,  insects,  fishes,  plants,  in  the  colors  most 
appropriate  to  their  natural  aspect.  Woods,  in  yellow — cop- 
per, in  green — edifices,  in  blue — and  so  on.  To  these  rules 
there  are  some  exceptions,  not  however,  produced  by  caprice. 

Disposal  of  the  hieroglyphics — in  vertical  column  from  top  to 
bottom — in  horizontal  lines.  Read  from  left  to  right,  or  from  right 
to  left ; beginning  from  that  direction  toward  which  the  heads  of  the 
animals  are  pointed.  There  are  exceptions,  I admit,  but  this  is  the 
general  order. 

Different  species  of  signs  and  symbols — in  the  hieroglyphic  char- 
acter are  thus  classed : 


0 


This  papyrus  is  a civil  contract  for  the  sale  of  the  profits  of  the 
offerings  in  certain  tombs.  Even  in  Ptolemaic  times,  Egyptian  law 
did  not  recognize  as  legal  any  documents  not  written  in  the  native 
characters  and  language.  It  is  of  the  last  year  of  Philometor,  about 
B.  C.  146. 


Hieroglyphics,  or  monumental  writing,  are  the  primitive  and 
sacred  style  ; the  most  ancient  monuments  and  papyri  being  in  this 
character.  It  is  divided  into  two  classes — the  pure  and  the  linear — 
the  latter  being,  as  is  explained  by  the  following  instances,  a reduc- 
tion of  the  former. 

Pure.  Lmear. 


A reed,  phonetically,  A. 


A jackal,  symbolically,  a Priest 


A goose,  phonetically,  S.,  Figuratively 
the  bird  goose — symbolically  offspring. 


The  pure  class  was  always  sculptured  or  painted,  and,  in  general, 
both  sculptured  and  painted  were  employed  on  public  edifices.  The 
linear  was  preferred  in  ordinary  life  and  literature  of  the  earlier 
periods. 

The  figures  of  things  chosen  as  hieroglyphics  are  ranged  into  the 
folk  wing  sixteen  categories. 


A — Celestial  objects — as  sun,  moon,  stars, &c. 

B — Man,  of  all  ages,  sexes  and  ranks,  in  all  positions  of  the  body. 
C — Parts  of  the  human  body — as  an  eye,  hand,  6cc. 

D — Quadrupeds — domestic  and  savage — as  a bull,  giraffe,  mon- 
key, &c. 

E — Birds  of  divers  species — as  a vulture,  hawk,  duck,  ibis,  owl,  6cc. 
F— Reptiles  of  various  kinds — as  a crocodile,  frog,  snake,  & c. 

G — Fish,  of  a few  varieties. 

TT  T ,t!  a beetle,  scorpion,  wasp,  &c. 


Mimic — or  figurative. 

Tropic — or  symbolic. 

Phonetic — or  “signs  of  sound  ” — i.  e.  alphabetic. 

Each  of  these  expressed  ideas  by  diffent  methods. 

Figuratively — viz;  KvpioXoynfi  Kara  Mipyaiv - — method  explain- 
ing itself  by  imitation. 

These  expressed  precisely  the  object  of  which,  with  more  or  less 
fidelity  of  design,  they  presented  the  image  to  the  eye — as  a disk, 
for  the  sun  ; a crescent,  for  the  moon  ; a crocodile,  for  that  reptile. 

Symbolically — Subdivided  into  four  principal  methods,  under  the 
following  rhetorical  rules,  viz  ; 

1st.  By  Synecdoche — the  part  placed  for  the  whole — as  the  head  of 
an  ox,  to  designate  an  ox — the  head  of  a goose,  to  represent  a goose. 

2nd.  By  Metonymy — the  cause  for  the  effect ; the  effect  for  the 
cause;  the  instrument,  for  the  labor  produced — as  “ a month”  by  a 
crescent,  with  its  horns  turned  downward,  to  designate  the  end  of  a 
lunation ; fire,  by  a column  of  smoke  from  a stove  : writing,  by  the 
combination  of  emblems  given  in  the  preceding  chapter. 

3rd.  By  Metaphor — as  a mother,  by  a vulture,  because  this  bird 
was  said  to  nourish  its  young  with  its  own  blood  : a king,  by  a bee, 
as  this  insect  is  subject  to  a monarchial  government : a priest,  by  a 
jackal,  to  indicate  his  watchfulness  over  sacred  things  : a physician, 
by  a species  of  duck,  the  name  of  which  was  cein,  while  the  pho- 
netic name  of  a doctor  was  ceini — as,  even  in  our  day,  a duck  is  an 
excellent  hieroglyphic  for  medical  empiricism,  because  its  phonetic 
cry  is  “ quack,  quack.” 

4th.  By  Enigma — thus,  an  ibis  stood  for  the  god  Tiiotii  Hermes, 
owing  to  a supposed  mystical  connection  between  the  bird  and  the 
deity : a branch  of  lotus,  or  other  parts  of  this  flower,  indicated  the 
Upper  Region,  or  Upper  Egypt — while  a tuft  of  papyrus,  symbolized 
the  Lower  Region,  or  Lower  Egypt:  a sphinx,  (always  male  in 
Egypt)  with  a lion’s  body  and  a man’s  head,  represented  royalty — or  * 
intellectual  power  combined  with  physical  strength. 

These  ideographic  signs  abound  in  Egyptian  legends ; but  can  be, 
and  often  are,  expressed  by  alphabetic  “homonymia”  and  syno- 
nymes. 

Phonetically — (from  the  Greek  <j>ovri,  sound.)  These  signs  are  let- 
ters, expressive,  not  of  ideas,  but  of  sounds,  like  our  A,  B,  C,  D. 

They  are,  by  far,  the  most  numerous  emblems  in  hieroglyphic 

writing  ; and  are  alphabetic,  and  not  syllabic. 

The  fundamental  principle  of  the  phonetic  system  consists,  in  rep- 
- ’ the  pictorial  image  of  a physical  object,  of 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


which  the  name,  in  the  colloquial  idiom  of  the  Egyptians,  had  ior 
initial  articulation,  or  beginning  letter,  the  sound  which  this  sign,  or 
image,  was  intended  to  express — thus : 


the  tuft  of  a Reed,  called  Ake,  stood  for  A. 


i Eagle, 

Akhom, 

tt 

A. 

Field, 

Koi, 

it 

K. 

Cap, 

Klapht, 

tt 

K. 

i Owl, 

Moolddj, 

<1 

M. 

Mouth, 

Ro, 

u 

R. 

Beetle — scarabceus,  “ 

There, 

(( 

TH. 

E<r<r,  “ 

•LJC5a>> 

Soohe, 

tt 

S. 

Hand, 

Tot, 

tt 

T. 

Lion, 

Labo, 

tt 

L. 

Water- tank, 

Sheei, 

it 

SH. 

In  teaching  little  children  our  own  alphabet,  we  often  adopt  a 
system  precisely  similar  ; as, 


« A,  was  an  Archer, , •, 

B,  was  a Butcher, , , 

C,  was  a Crier,  , 

D,  was  a Doctor,  , > 

or  otherwise, 

“ A,  was  an  Apple-pie  ; 

B,  bit  it ; 

C,  cried  for  it ; 

D,  danced  for  it ; 

E,  eyed  it.” 


The  copiousness  of  this  principle,  in  the  variety  of  words  com- 
mencing with  the  same  initial,  permitted  to  the  scribe  a choice  of 
“ homophones,”  or  “ similars  in  sound,”  to  express  the  same  letter ; 
thus,  the  letter  R could  be  expressed  by  a mouth,  ro ; or  by  a pome- 
granate flower,  roman  ; or  by  a tear,  rime  : T by  a hand,  tot ; by  a 
wing,  tenh ; or  by  a hoopoo,  tepeep : S by  an  egg,  soohe  ; or  by  a 
goose,  sar;  and  so  on;  as  I have  exemplified  in  the  word  America. 

The  number  of  homophones  allowed  to  each  letter  was,  after  all, 
not  very  considerable  ; norwas  their  choice,  in  the  Pharaonic  period, 
dependent  on  individual  caprice.  In  later  times,  the  degradation  oi 
art  in  Egypt,  by  the  Ptolemies  and  Romans,  corrupted  the  simplicity 
of  pristine  orthography,  by  the  addition  of  signs  unknown  before  ; 
and  the  scribe  sought,  by  the  profusion  of  his  fantastic  homophones, 
to  disguise  his  ignorance  and  his  inability  to  equal  his  glorious  pre- 
cedents. 

Yet,  in  the  wise  laws  which  regulated  his  primeval  art,  the  scribe 
of  ancient  days  had  an  abundant  selection  at  his  disposal,  not  only 
cf  varied  phonetic  signs,  symbolically  expressive  of  meanings  corres- 
ponding to  the  dignity  of  his  theme,  but  adapted  to  horizontal  or 
vertical  inscriptions.  For  instance  ; the  Coptic  word  C1AG’  sems> 
could  be  written  as  follows : 


In  vertical  columns.  In  horizontal  lines. 


As  in  the  Hebrew,  Phoenician,  Arabic,  and  other  Semitic  lan- 
guages, the  vowels  in  ancient  Coptic  were  vague,  and  habitually 
omitted.  The  consonants  indicated  the  word ; as,  at  the  present 
day,  is  customary  in  writing  short-hand.  In  this  manner,  Domitia. 
Nos  became  Dmtns  ; Berenice  is  written  Brnk  ; Philippos  is  some. 
iiiw«  Pheeoleeoupos,  and,  in  some  cases,  Pips. 

One  great  advantage  accrued  from  this  power  of  vocalic  suppres- 


23 


sion,  and  the  admissible  transmutation  of  L for  R ; because  thereby 
the  differences  of  dialects  in  speech  disappeared  from  the  graphical 
texts.  There  were  three  colloquial  idioms  of  the  same  language 
among  the  denizens  of  the  Nile  in  Coptic  times  ; and  we  may  infer 
that  it  was  the  same  in  ancient  days  ; especially  now,  that  Dr.  Mor- 
ton’s triple  classification  of  Ancient  Egyptian  Crania,  indicates  tho 
primitive  existence  of  three  varieties  of  the  Caucasian  in  Egypt. 
Among  the  Fellahs  of  the  present  day,  three  idioms  of  Arabic  are, 
to  a practised  ear,  discernible  ; the  Saeedee,  or  Upper  Egyptian  pro. 
vincialisms  ; the  Ghdrbee,  or  Western  ; and  the  Sherkawee,  or  East, 
ern,  refcrrible  to  the  lower  provinces.  It  was  anciently  somewhat 
the  same  ; for, 


in  Lower  Egypt,  the  people  spoke  the  Memphiiic,  > 

“ Middle  “ “ “ “ Bashmuric,  > dialects. 

“ Upper  “ “ “ “ Sahidic,  ) 

But,  by  the  suppression  of  the  vowels,  and  the  transmutability  of  cer. 
tain  consonants,  the  same  combination  of  hieroglyphics  could  be 
vocally  enunciated,  by  each  provincial  reader,  according  to  his  own 
peculiar  idiom.  The  verb  Kel,  to  fold;  might  be  read 

kal,  kel,  kol,  or  kul ; or  ka  r,  her,  kor,  or  kur. 

It  must  be  observed,  < I > when  the  introduction  of 
Christianity  caused  the  hieroglyphic,  hieratic  and  demotic  charac- 
ters to  lie  abandoned,  (as  savoring  too  much  of  heathenism  for  the 
delicate  fingers  of  those,  in  whose  eyes  every  legend  was  an  inven. 
tion  of  the  foul  fiend,  simply  because  they  were  too  stultified  to  com. 
prehend,  too  fanatical  to  inquire)  the  Greco-Coptic  alphabet  was 
substituted  in  lieu  of  the  ancient  system  ; but  the  language,  beyond  a 
few  hellenic  engraftments,  and  a few  idioms  introduced  by  Jew's, 
Romans  and  Arabs,  remained  nearly  the  same,  till  the  invasion  of 
Admer-ebn-el-As,  and  the  establishment  of  the  Saracenic  Caliphate 
in  A.  D.  540.  Arabic  gradually  superseded  it;  and  I wTas  told,  that 
the  last  speaker  of  Coptic  died  some  seventy  years  ago. 

The  process  adopted  by  modern  hierologists,  in  translating  ancient 
Egyptian  legends,  is  to  transpose  the  hieroglyphics,  according  to 
their  corresponding  values  in  Coptic  letters  ; the  roots  are  then  in 
general  traceable  in  Coptic  lexicons  ; but  it  requires  vast  erudition, 
intense  study,  and  long  practice,  to  become  a translator.  In  ancient 
days,  a hieroglyphical  text  could  be  read  as  currently,  as,  in  our  day, 
a page  can  be  read  in  the  Chinese  language,  or  a treatise  on  Algebra 
in  any  of  our  tongues  ; both  of  which,  like  an  Egyptian  legend,  offer 
a continual  intermixture  of  phonetic  and  ideographical  signs. 

■ The  three  component  principles  of  the  sacred  w'riting — that  is  to 
say  ; the  fgurative,  by  imitation ; the  symbolic,  by  assimilation ; and 
the  phonetic,  by  alphabetical  arrangement;  were  applied  to  all  the 
parts  of  speech.  A noun  could  be  often  written  in  each  method 
alone,  or  expressed  by  the  union  of  tw  o ; and,  not  unfrequently,  by 
an  intermixture  of  all  three,  in  the  same  word.  It  became  necessary 
to  indicate  to  the  reader,  through  which  of  these  principles  he  should 
understand  a given  combination  of  symbols.  To  effect  this  deside, 
ratum,  the  Egyptians  introduced  certain  arbitrary  signs,  as  detennin. 
atives.  For  example:  two  eyes,  drawn  in  an  inscription,  might 
mean  A A ; or  represent  simply  two  eyes;  or  imply  the  act  of  vision. 
In  the  first  case,  the  w'riter  merely  drew  two  eyes  ; in  the  second,  he 
would  add  one  arbitrary  sign  ; and  in  the  third,  he  used  another 
arbitrary  sign,  to  denote  that  he  meant  a verb,  or  the  act  of  seeing. 

With  these  rules,  and  their  application,  the  only  w'ay  to  gain  an 
adequate  acquaintance  with  the  subject,  is  to  consult  Champollion’s 
grammar.  I merely  attempt  to  give  a superficial  view  of  its  won. 
derful  results.  The  following  will  explain  some  of  these  determin- 
atives of  nouns. 


an  ox, 

a pig, 
a king, 

perfumes, 

a flower, 


& 

tc 


an  ox, 

an  animal’s  hide, 
a king, 

a jar 

a flower, 


a serpent, 


a serpent 


and  so  on  ; each  determinative  being  appropriate  to  the  nature  of  the 
object  determined : the  names  of  deities  by  the  image  of  the  pecu. 
liar  god  intended ; the  proper  names  of  men  and  women  by  the  figure 
of  a male  or  a female,  as 


from  a papyrus 


Pet-Hor-Piire — “ he  who  belongs  to 
. Horns  and  to  Phrd  ” (the  sun)  being  the 
A/hie rriglyphicnl  mode  of  spelling  Potiphar, 


Lord  Mountnorris. 


24 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


Names  oi  Egyptian  localities  were  determined  by  the  sign 
" consecrated  bread,”  betokening  civilization, 


Torn  or  Nora — 

“ the  abode  of  Amun  ” 
Amunei. 


o 


or  by  a square  k “ the  abode  of  Amun  ” Thebes. 

inclosure, 
meaning  an 
edifice. 


No.  1. 


No.  2. 


Foreign  countries  were  indicated  by  the  sign  “ Kah  ” 

country;  generally,  however,  with  the  addition  of  the  barbarian 
mace,  (termed  “ Liss&n  ” and  “Aboo-sdlem  ” and  in  use  in  Nubia  to 
this  day)  above  it,  as  \ For  example, 


1 


BARBARIAN  COUNTRY. 


KLEOPATRA 
“ Cleopatra  ” — B.  C.  52, 


To  distinguish  among  so  many  sovereigns,  the  Egyptians,  from 
some  period  prior  to  the  16th  dynasty,  B.  C.  2272,  gave  to  each 
Pharaoh  two  cartouches — the  first  of  which  is  called  the  prenomen, 
and  is  generally  symbolic,  containing  titles : while  it  is  always  the 
designatory  oval  by  which  the  individual  Pharaoh  is  known — the 
aecond  is  called  his  nomen,  and  is  generally  altogether  phonetic, 
containing  his  proper  name : like  our  Surnames  and  Christian  names. 


No.  1. 


No.  2. 


No.  1. 

Title — Pharaoh. 

Prenomen — Sun  Lord  of  justice. 

No.  2. 

Title — Son  of  the  Sun. 

Nomen — AMuNoPH,  Moderator  of  the  land 
of  purity  and  justice — i.  e.  Egypt. 

Cartouches  of  Amunoph  the  3rd,  B.  C. 
1692.  It  is  his  statue,  which  is  called  that 
of  Memnon .'  who  did  not  exist  in  Pharaonic 
days  in  Egypt ! and  whose  vocality  was  a 
priestly  humbug. 


No.  1. 

Title — Pharaoh. 

Prenomen — Sun,  guardian  of  Truth,  ap. 
proved  of  the  Sun. 

No.  2. 

Title — Son  of  the  Sun. 

Nomen — Beloved  of  Amun,  Ramses. 
Cartouches  of  Ramses  III. — the  great  Se- 
sostris — B.  C.  1565. 


“Kanana — barbarian  country” — i.  e. 
Canaan — conquests  of  18th  Dynasty, 
to  B.  C.  1500. 


“Kush,  barbarian  country,  perverse  race,”  being  the 
Egyptian  designalory  name  and  title  of  Negroes,  prior  to 
B.  C.  1600. 


names  of  kings  were  de'ermined  by  the  oval 
termed,  by  the  Champollionists,  “ cartouche ,” 
which  incloses  the  names  of  Egyptian  monarchs 
during  a period  of  3000  years.  Thus,  besides 
the  many  other  instances  in  these  chapters,  we 
have  now  before  us, 


PTOLeMAIS 
“ Ptolemy-Soter  ” — B.  C.  304. 


No.  1. 

Title — Sun,  Lord  of  the  two  regions,  i.  e.  of 
Upper  and  Lower  Egypt. 

Prenomen — Autohrator  Kaiseros. 

No.  2. 

< Son  of  the  Sun. 

Titles  Lord  of  the  Rulers — i.  e.  King  of 
( Kings. 

Nomen — Antoninus  Sebastos. 

Cartouches  of  the  Roman  emperor,  Ca;sur 
Antoninus  Augustus  ; better  known  as  the 
infamous  Caracalla,  A.  D.  211 — being  the 
last  royal  name  found  in  hieroglyphics,  anfi 
probably  the  last  recorded  in  that  character. 


Ancient  Egyptian  System  of  Numeration. 


Modem  civilization,  springing  from  the  ashes  of  the  past  and 
following,  often  without  acknowledgment,  the  hoary  precedents  of 
Asiatic  and  Egyptian  antiquity,  has  adopted  for  the  arithmetical  no. 
tation  of  a certain  series  of  ideas  in  relation  to  number  and  quantity, 
signs  which  have  no  similarity  to  the  system  used  for  the  exposition 
of  other  ideas,  expressed  by  words  in  colloquial  language. 

Our  signs  for  numbers,  or  ciphers,  are  ideographic  ; have  no  rela. 
tion  to  the  sound  of  the  same  numbers  ; are  totally  removed  in  nature 
from  our  alphabetic  system ; and  are  independent  of  the  diversities 
of  language  ; for,  whether  read  in  German,  Spanish,  English,  or  other 
tongue,  the  ciphers  1843  express  that  number  to  the  mind  of  every 
European  nation. 

The  Egyptian  primitive  ciphers,  on  the  contrary,  are  consistent  in 
nature  with  the  Nilotic  system  of  writing,  and  enter,  without  effort,  into 
one  of  the  three  methods  by  which  their  scribes  represented  ideas. 

Egyptian  numerative  signs  are  divisible  into  ordinal  and  cardinal; 
the  former  determining  the  relation  of  an  object  in  regard  to  other 
objects  of  the  same  species — as,  the  tenth  year,  the  hundredth  psalm  ; 
the  latter  designating  the  quantity  or  number  of  these  objects — as, 
one,  two,  three,  &c. 

Cardinal  numbers  could,  in  writing,  be  expressed  in  three  methods: 
1st.  By  the  repetition  of  the  object  itself ; thus  a hatchet,  symbolical 


of  a god, 
2nd.  Bywri 
by  marks 
3rd.  By  wri 


when  repeated  nine  times,  meant  9 gods, 
ting  the  above  symbol  of  a god,  and  following  it 
of  units,  as,  they  expressed  three  gods. 

i i 


ting  the  num 


1 


ber phone- 

mtically,  as, 
Phtoou — 
four. 


Mil 

Ordinal  numbers  were  , below  which  the  cardinal  num. 

determined  by  the  sign  ' — ' \ ber  was  written  ; as,  Og~y 

* Mehshoment — the  . . , \ 

third.  I I » ' 

Of  these  methods  there  are  some  varieties.  I give  the  element* 
of  the  hieroglyphic  numerical  table  : 


| — sign  for  units — repeated  in  groups  up  to  9 

n 

9 


tens  “ 

hundreds  “ 


90 

900 


X 

( 


thousands  “ 


9,000 


myriads,  or  tens  of  thousands  “ 90,000 


Beyond  this  number,  they  proceeded  with  a combination  of  then# 
signs,  resembling  10,000x2000=20,000,000. 

The  Hieratic  affords  some  reductions  of  the  same  system. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


85 


Nifaiat-Kah,  the  “ country  of  the  nine  bows” — Lybia ; so 
— termed  as  early  as  Osortasen  I.,  prior  to  B.  C.  2000. 


B 


m 


L, 

to 


O 


KAH, 

Country, 


/ Twelve  thousand,  or  10,000  and  2,000 ; as  in  the  record  of 
I the  enemies  slain,  after  a battle  between  Ramses-Maiamun 
TtI  IV. — B.  C.  1470 — and  the  Asiatic  nation  of  Mashoash. 

nnni that  is>  12535 

ill  if  hands  cutoff  from 
* ' I I I i the  dead  of  the 

Cut,  hands,  § o o o m ' f Mashoash,  to 

off.  ==  ®.  10  I show  their  num- 

2 1-1  1-1  J ber ; as  it  is  still 

the  fashion  among  the  Turks  to  cut  off  the  ears  of  the  enemy’s  dead, 
string  them  on  sticks  in  sets  of  a hundred,  pickle  them,  and  send 
them  to  Constantinople  in  proof  of  victory.  During  the  Greek  revo- 
lution, it  was  customary,  on  both  sides,  to  resort  to  the  same  primitive 
method  of  counting  the  dead  ; though,  to  increase  the  number  of  such 
trophies,  both  Greeks  and  Turks  generally  cut  off  the  ears  of  their 
own  dead  as  well,  to  swell  the  bulletins  of  triumph,  claimed,  of  course, 
by  each  party.  In  the  last  war  with  Russia,  when  the  Turks  fled 
(as  they  invariably  will,  on  encountering  the  European  bayonet,)  it 
was  observed,  that  the  cavalry  always  made  off  first,  lest  they  should 
be  fired  at  by  their  own  infantry,  who  were  anxious  6 
to  have  the  benefit  of  their  horses ! The  most 
daring  of  the  Turkish  troopers  are  called  Delhi 
(madmen,)  from  their  recklessness  of  human  life. 

Their  motto  is,  to  conquer  or  die  ; and,  as  Baron 
de  Tott  remarks,  “ ils  ne  font  ni  l’un,  ni  l’autre.” 

The  ancient  Egyptians  understood  decimels  and 
fractions  ; and,  in  short,  the  papyri,  existing  in  va- 
rious museums  of  Europe,  containing  long  inven- 
tories and  accounts,  show  that  the  priests  were 
masters  of  arithmetical  book-keeping  also ; a sci-  /WW\ 
ence  developed  3000  years  later  by  the  Italian 
merchants.  ^ 

In  their  notation  of  time  (besides  the  astronom. 
ical  cycles,  and  perpetual  calendar,)  the  Egyptians 
regulated  their  ordinary  dates  by  the  reign  of  each 
Pharaoh ; reckoning  from  the  date  of  his  acces- 
sion to  the  throne  to  the  day  of  his  death.  As  in 
England,  the  5th  year  of  Victoria,  or  in  France,  the  12th  of  Louis 
Philippe  ; so  in  Egypt,  an  act  was  chronicled,  “ In  the  fourth  year  of 
the  Pharaoh,  Sheshonk,  the  10th  day  of  the  month  Paopi.” 

This  chronological  system  has  been  of  immense  advantage  to  the 
modern  hierologists,  by  enabling  them  to  ascertain  the  length  of  each 
king’s  individual  reign,  and  also  by  assisting  them  in  other  computa- 
tions of  relative  eras  for  events  ; while,  from  the  multitude  of  tablets 
bearing  dates,  and  still  existing,  we  can  correct  and  confirm  history. 

I give  further  on,  in  a note,  some  facts  relating  to  Persian  monarchs, 
and  will  add  two  other  instances. 

Manetho  tells  us,  that  Sesostris  (who  is  our  Ramses  3rd — B.  C. 
15G5)  reigned  66  years,  2 months.  A few  years  ago  it  was  pretended 
(even  with  the  example  of  George  III.  before  our  eyes,)  that  such  a 
reign  was  extremely  improbable.  We  now  have  Stelie  bearing  dates, 
of  the  3rd,  4th,  8th,  9th,  14th,  30th,  34th,  35th,  37th,  38th,  40th,  44th, 
and  62nd  years  of  his  reign.  Nor  need  longevity  be  claimed  for  the 
ancient  Egyptians ; because,  while  the  Almighty  vouchsafed  to  the 
Hebrew  patriarchs  an  especial  duration  Of  life,  we  have  positive  evi- 
dences that,  in  Egypt  and  among  Egyptians,  the  average  life  of  man,  in 
ages  before  Abraham,  was  precisely  what  it  is  at  present. 

Again,  TnoTMES  the  4th  (Mceris)  is  said,  by  historians,  to  have 
reigned  only  12  years  9 months. 

When,  in  1839,  my  much-honored  friend,  A.  C.  Harris,  Esq.,  of 
Alexandria,  and  myself,  wandered  one  day  in  quest  of  “ hieroglyph- 
ical  adventures,”  along  the  craggy  ledges,  caverns,  tombs  and  quar- 
ries of  the  hills  behind  Zebayda  (middle  Egypt,)  we  stumbled  on  a 
tablet  apparently  of  the  forty-second  year  of  this  king,  which  seemed 
to  record  that,  in  this  year  of  his  reign,  stone  had  been  quarried  at 
this  place  for  the  temple  of  Thoth  at  Hermapolis  Magna — Aishmoo- 
nbyn — on  the  opposite  side  of  the  Nile.  If  this  should  prove  authen.  1 
tic,  we  should  be  enabled  to  correct  history  from  a hiero- 
glyphical  date.  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson  had  already  found  dates 
of  the  27th  (see  Materia  Hieroglyphics ;)  and  this  fact  de- 
mands a more  critical  investigation  of  the  tablet  alluded  to, 
than  in  our  hurried  ramble  we  were  able  to  compass ; as  it 
would  amend  Rosellini’s  and  Champollion  Figeac’s  arrange- 
ment of  the  later  reigns  of  the  18  th  dynasty.  The  vast  relics 
leit  by  Mceris,  seem  to  demand  an  extension  of  his  reign  be- 
yond 12  years  and  9 months. 

From  the  summit  of  the  hill,  I directed  my  telescope  with 
vain  regrets  toward  the  mounds  of  Aishmoondyn ; where,  up  to  1825, 
a noble  portico,  (added  by  Ptolemy-Lagus,  in  the  name  of  Philip 
Arrid^us,  about  B.  C.  320,  to  the  temple,  which  had  then  existed  for 
1600  years,)  had  stood,  in  majesty,  and  in  safety,  at  which  time 
Mohammed  Ali  caused  it  to  be  destroyed,  to  supply  building  ma- 
terials  for  his  regenerating  and  civilizing  ru;n-distillery  at  Mellawee. 


In  hieroglyphics,  the  sign  for  tear  was  \ , figurative  of  a palm 
branch,  and  symbolic  of  a year,  because,  L according  to  Horus. 
Apollo,  “of  all  others  this  tree  (the  date,  f palm)  alone,  at  each 
renovation  of  the  moon,  produces  one  additional  branch, so  that  in  twelve 
branches  the  year  is  completed.”  The  plausible  reason  is,  that,  in  Egypt, 
the  lower  branches  of  the  date-palm  are  cut  close  to  the  trunk  once  a year. 

Month  was  , “ the  moon  inverted ,”  (Horus-Apollo) 

symbolic  of  lunar  f t ' motion. 

Day  was  , 7C  symbolic  -of  the  sun's  diurnal  course. 
And  thus  the  15th  of  March,  1843,  in  hieroglyphics  would  be, 


n 


lx  S 


I 

9 99  9 


r\r\r\c\ 
i 1 1 


ii  o nil 
i i in 


Q 


3 0 

o m & 

I will  now  proceed  to  the  analysis  of  one  hieroglyphical  text,  and 
the  production  of  a few  others ; by  which  the  reader  will  be  con- 
vinced, that  these  things  are  no  longer,  thanks  to  the  Champollionists, 
“ unintelligible  mysteries.” 

“ Grammaire  Egyptienne,”  p.  398 — and  Champollion  Figeac,  p. 
225.  Read  from  right  to  left. 


£V 


to  go. 


1% 

SHE-ff;  KIIONS,  EITI, 


Khons,  I accord 


NWV\ 


NOHEM, 
to  rescue, 


No.  1 — is  composed  of  two  signs,  the  figure  of  the  god  Khons,  re- 
cognizable by  his  emblems — he  is  the  subject  of  the  proposition, 
and  signifies,  “ I the  god  Khons the  other  sign  above  him  is 
phonetic,  and  is  the  root  of  the  verb  eiti — to  give,  or  accord. 

No.  2 — is  phonetic — it  reads  she-m,  and  signifies,  to  go. 

No.  3 — the  pronoun  is  phonetic — the  figure  that  of  a king — the  group 
reads  pephhont,  his  majesty. 

No.  4 — is  L,  the  preposition  to. 

No.  5 — the  first  four  signs  are  phonetic — Bashtan — the  other  two, 
one  figurative  of  a country,  the  other  symbolic  of  civilization — 
meaning  a civilized  country. 

No.  6 — is  L,  the  preposition  to. 

No.  7 — is  phonetic — reading  nohem,  to  rescue,  deliver. 

No.  8 — is  phonetic  and  symbolic — si-t,  daughter. 

No.  9 — is  phonetic — N,  the  preposition  of. 

No.  10 — is  figurative  of  the  idea,  chief. 

No.  11 — is  N,  of. 

No.  12 — aa  above,  No.  5. 

The  current  translation  is,  “ I,  the  god  Khons,  consent  that  his 
majesty  (the  king  of  Egypt)  should  go  to  the  civilized  country  of 
Bashtan,  to  rescue  (probably  to  marry)  the  daughter  of  the  chief  of 
the  country  of  Bashtan.” 

This  extract  is  from  the  15th  line  of  an  historical  tablet,  existing 
in  the  ruins,  southeast  of  Karnac,  Thebes.  Epoch  uncertain. 


The  following  are  facsimile  texts,  culled  from  Champollion’s 
grammar,  to  illustrate  the  method  introduced  by  that  immortal 
scholar,  for  translating  hieroglyphical  legends  into  Coptic,  and  thence 
into  French 

A — Page  409. 


Jfi  . 

Xtfp/rrqi&i  £ 

deux  obelisques. 


i — C /vwwv 

rr&i-eipe 


jV  fait 
(eriger 


1 

T 

^fLorp 

la  gauche. 


I 

ft 


“ On  the  left  hand,  (or  western  bank  of  the  Nile,)  I have  caused 
two  obelisks  to  be  erected.” 

Speech  of  Amunoph  the  3rd. — on  a stela  dedicatory  of  his  palace, 
the  Amunophiuni,  Thebes — B.  C.  1690. 


M 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


B — Page  408. 


e*a(\ 

/vw*  Y 


y ? 

1 1 I 


AV\M 


' ' if.  | 


e<- 


7Td.GTCj 


Amon. 


rr 

de 


nexiv 


le»  ordres 


/tdr-eipe 

J’ejdcutfli 


“ I have  executed  the  orders  of  my  father,  Amun.” 


C — Page  184. 


s © y t rrr 

/wvw  ZZ>Z>  Ml  TbS^ 'mit  I m ^ V 111 


TT£T  -ixrf  Teimero  iid-er  ©Jpw  &p*.i£HT  rremp 

cet,  edifice,  eontemplez,  venez,  Derry,  qui  residez,  grands,  Odieux* 

dans 

“ O great  gods,  who  reside  in  Derry,  come  and  contemplate  this  edifice  !” 

Dedications  of  the  temple  of  Amada,  in  Nubia,  epoch  about  1700,  B.  C.  At  this  very  day,  there  is  an  adjacent  town  named  Derr 
while  its  ancient  name  was  The-Ee,  the  abode  of  Rha,  the  Sun — a Heliopolis,  in  Nubia  1 

D — Page  405-6. 

C=^ 

© o 


AWa 


K>f*Ae 

Egypte ! 


-Ooo£j 


n ncoTTrr  uu  crr»XT 

d*  roi  O disent. 


I’Ethiopie, 


75 

I 

XL- 

da 


= 


des  peuples  Strangers 


m 

UJHpl 

les  chefs, 


1 Q-c/ 

(UJ)IlpH 


O soleil 


1 The  chiefs  of  Kush-countries  (i.  e.  Negro  countries,  lying  above  lat.  15.)  say,  O King  of  Egypt  1 O Sun  of  foreign  nations  ! 

From  the  tomb  of  an  African  prince,  at  Thebes. 


iriiL 


entiere, 


E — page  500. 

//^i 

r<  ndd.  TiaiHpi  n eipe 


AVW\ 


rf  ttithJL 

la  terre,  de.  lelgneur. 


AAAM 


enojti 

avec  lui. 


entidre. 


» 75 

ff&TTKA, 

de  la  terrw 


du,  grand. 


ts±=3 

fcCrj 

JteKA£ 

les  contr6es. 


chef, 


G(C 


du,  etant, 

© o 

KHlStG 

l’Egypte, 


r 


<A 

\ 

€f 

la  venue, 

£ 

H 

fcCukoe 

Caimbyse, 


H On  the  coming  of  the  great  chief,  lord  of  the  whole  earth,  Cambyses,  to  Egypt,  behold  ! all  the  nations  marched  with  him” — alluding  tc 
the  vast  army  of  the  Persians.  From  an  inscription  on  the  statue  of  the  priest,  “ Outohem  Pisotan,”  in  the  Vatican  Museum,  Rome 


F — page  500-1. 


+ 


vivant,  toujour*, 


Ss/ 


Darius, 


'{ 

yWVVA 

k 

T ^ 

n 

TTCTrr  rr  TMrtT  OYi<S-a. 

nd.  r 

XU)  <S.T03 

roi  du,  la  mnjestd, 

k mol, 

ordonna,  ' et 

ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


2> 


o 


w 


vi  ■ x 

gw.  GCjUffT  0Y&(L£.  gig 


Arma-pays, 


dam. 


sa  majesty. 


©^ 

M 

Khug 

P 

'j-JGJ 

•Egypte. 

cn. 

qua  j’allaiw 

majesty  was 

in  Aram ;”  i. 

e.  Assyria — now 

Bourn,  the  root  of  Armenia.  Same  statue — epoch  between  B.  C.  525  and  485 — 


Idem — page  183. 

The  subjoined  example  will  afford  a good  idea  of  the  transition  from  the  linear  hieroglyphical  character  into  the  hieratic.  It  is  from 
the  grand  “ Ritual  for  the  Dead.” 


(3 


"21  3 ■ ft 

r» 


aaaa\  L^*k| 

/wva  . _ ~r — ■* 

n A 


aji.pOK  itcS.foT0g  <5&HTrrrermooT  gu  TnuirifTp  <*> 


vers  toi. 


je  suit  arrive. 


la  demeure,  de. 


l’eau. 


dans,  oeluu  diou. 


O, 


“ O god,  who  residest  in  the  habitation  of  waters,  I have  arrived  as  far  as  thee  !” 


The  following  are  extracted  from  the  “Antiquities  of  Egypt,”  be- 
fore referred  to,  with  some  additional  notes. 

G. 


1 

O 

1 1 r 


la- 


under 

thy  sandals 
(is) 

Kol,  the  barbarian  land 

Kush,  (Nigritia) 

(is) 


thy  grasp. 

“ Kol,  the  barbarian  land,  is  beneath  thy  sandals ; Kush  (Nigritia) 
Is  within  thy  grasp.” 

Conquests  of  Ramses  2nd  ; depicted  in  the  Hemispeos  of  Beyt-el. 
Walee,  Nubia — B.  C.  1570. 

Kol,  or  Kor,  was  an  Asiatic  country.  The  phraseology  is  identi- 
cal with  Romans  xvi.,  20 — 1 Cor.  xv.,  25-7.  The  same  analogy  to 
the  measured  phrases  or  parallelisms  of  the  Hebrew  poetry  is  equally 
discernible  in  tho  succeeding  H and  I ; as  well  as  in  most  Egyptian 
legends : strongly  confirmatory  of  the  common  Asiatic  origin  of  both 
nations. 

H. 

Thy 
name 
(is) 
firm 
as 

heaven ; 

10$  the  duration  of  thy  days  (is  as) 

f 


/vvw\ 

KUD 


Liam 

A/VNA 


•I 


Western  face  of  the  Obelisk  of  Luqsor — Place  de  la  Concorde, 
Paris — sculptures  of  Ramses  3rd — Sesostris — B.  C.  1550. 


<vw\ 

0 


the  disc  of  the  Sun. 


O thou 


ruler 


n 

AVW\ 

^ ^ Egypt, 

® (thou) 


of 


I 0 Sun 


AW\ 


“ Nifaiat ” — Lybia — (literally,  the  nine  bowB) 


shall  not  be  (stand) 


HD  before  thee 


“ O thou  ruler  of  Egypt,  thou  sun  of  Lybia,  the  impure  shall  not 
stand  before  thee.”  “ Nifaiat ” is  the  plural  of  phet,  Coptice,  a bow  ; 
singularly  associated  with  Phut,  the  son  of  Ham,  whose  descendants 
colonized  the  “ Belad-ed-djereed” — countries  of  the  date-palm — or 
Barbary.  The  bow  reminds  us  of  the  Numidiau  archers. 

From  a tablet  at  Aboosimbel,  Nubia,  addressed  to  Ramses  3rd  by 
an  African  prince — B.  C.  1550. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


His  hand 
is 

firm 

on 

his 


chariot 

like 

Monthou,  Mare, 

Lord 

of  the  land  of  purity  and  justice — Egypt. 


Conquests  of  Ramses  2nd — defeat  of  African  nations,  at  Beyt.el- 
ll'alf.e— B.  C.  1570. 


Tread  ye  out  for  yourselves. 

Tread  ye  out  for  yourselves, 

the  straw ; 

For  men,  who  are  your  masters, 

the  grain. 


Or  paraphrased. 

Hie  along,  oxen  ! tread  the  corn  faster  ; 

The  straw  for  yourselves,  the  grain  for  your  master. 

Discovered  by  Champollion  le  Jeune,  in  1828,  in  a legend  over 
peasants,  pictured  in  the  act  of  threshing  corn.  Date  prior  to  B.  C. 
1500 — probably  much  more  remote. 

The  Fellhhs  of  the  present  day  sing  in  all  their  agricultural  occu. 
pations ; and  the  words  of  their  simple  melodies  are  often  identical 
in  nature  to  the  above  ; while  I have  no  doubt,  that  the  air  of  the 
ancient  chant  of  “ Maneros  ” is  still  preserved  in  the  plaintive 
(third-minor)  notes  of  modern  Egyptians. 

Many  a time,  in  my  long  rambles  in  Lower  Egypt,  have  I paused 
to  catch  the  wild,  but  exquisitely  sweet  songs  of  the  peasant  and  the 
boatman — blended  with  the  incessant  notes  of  the  “ Ciclade,”  the 
hum  of  the  wild  bee,  and  the  monotonous  drone  of  the  distant  sakia 
(water-wheel.) 

In  Egypt,  the  grain  is  separated  from  the  stalk  by  a bullock-ma- 
chine, called  the  noreg.  There  the  “ ox  is  not  muzzled  as  he  treads 
the  grain,”  though  man  is  muzzled  by  Mohammed  Ali. 


K. 


/VWV\ 

I I ■ 

VWA 

vww 


A Threshing  Song. 


Tread  ye  out 


for  yourselves 


twice  (i.e.  bis,  meaning,  this  sentence  to  be  sung  tieiea) 
O oxen 

Tread  ye  out 

for  yourselves 

Tread  ye  out 

for  yourselves 


1st  Column — “ The  Osiriana — (i.  e.  taken  unto  Osiris, 
meaning,  the  deceased)  goddess,  queen  Onknas, 
sun  with  a good  heart,  the  truth-teller.  The  royal 
daughter  of  King  Psametik,  (Psameticus  1st,  B. 
C.  650,)  the  truth-teller.” 

2nd  Column — “ The  Osiriana,  goddess,  queen,  Onk- 
nas, sun  with  a good  heart,  the  truth-teller.  Her 
mother  was  the  divine  queen  Nitocrit  (Nitocris, 
wife  of  the  above  Psameticus)  the  truth-teller.” 


From  the  Sarcophagus  of  queen  Onknas,  the  sister 
of  Haphre  (Apries,  Pharaoh  Hophra  of  Scripture)  and 
the  wife  of  Aahmes,  Amasis,  B.  C.  569.  It  is  re- 
markable, that  Herodotus  says,  that  the  tombs  of  this 
Amasis  and  his  wife,  were  violated  by  the  insane 
Cambyses,  B.  C.  525. 

Now  this  sarcophagus  was  discovered  by  the 
French  officers  of  the  Luqsor,(the  vessel  sent  to  Thebes 
for  the  Obelisk,  in  1831,)  in  a pit  125  feet  deep,  be. 
hind  the  palace  of  Luqsor.  It  was  found  broken  open, 
the  mummy  burnt,  and  the  scorched  remains  of  the 
desecrated  queen,  lying  around  the  sarcophagus.  It 
is  now  safe  in  the  British  Museum. 


M. 


straw 


the  grain  (a  bashol  pouring  out  grain) 

l*H 

AVAN  who  (are) 


your  masters. 


Anna* 

I II 


Construction  rhythmical. 

Tread  ye  out  for  yourselves, 
Tread  yo  out  for  yourselves, 

O oxen  1 


TRANSLATION. 

“ Knum,  the  Crealor,  on  hie 
wheel  moulds  the  divine  members 
of  Osiris  (the  type  of  man)  in 
the  shining  house  of  life” — that 
is,  in  the  solar  disc. 

The  god  Amun-Kneph,  tur- 
ning a potter’s  wheel,  mould- 
ing the  mortal  part  of  Osiris, 
the  Father  of  men,  out  of  a 
lump  of  clay.  The  clay  is 
placed  on  the  potter’s-wheel, 
which  he  turns  with  his  foot, 
while  he  fashions  it  with  his 
hands.  It  is  a subject  from 
the  mystic  chamber  of  the 
Temple  of  Philae — 1st  Cata- 
ract. 

Amun-Knepii,  or  Neph, 
Kneph,  Chnouphis,  Noub — 
represents  the  “creative  pow. 
er  of  Amun” — that  is,  “ the 
spirit  of  God” — the  breath 
of  life  poured  into  our  nos. 
trils. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


39 


He  moulds  man;  in  Hebrew,  Adam,| 
the  first  man,  meaning  both  man,  and 
red  earth,  or  clay.  Now  consult  Isaiah 
lxiv,  8.  “ But  now,  O Lord,  thou  art 
our  Father : We  are  the  clay,  (in  Hebrew  Adme,  red  earth)  and 
thou  our  potter ; and  we  are  all  the  work  of  thy  handy 


N 


jD 


aama 


May 

thy  soul 
attain  (come) 


Khnum,  (one  of  the  forms  of  Amon,  the  creator) 


the  creator,  (the  idea  denoted  by  a man  building  the 
walls  of  a city) 


of  all 

Mankind,  (literally  men  and  women.} 


“ May  thy  soul  attain  to  Khnum,  the  Creator  of  all  mankind.” 


This  alone  is  a proof  of  the  primitive  Egyptian  creed  of  one  God, 
the  Creator,  (whose  divine  attributes  were  classed  in  triads)  of  man’s 
possession  of  a soul,  and  of  its  immortality  ; of  a resurrection,  and 
of  the  hope  of  such. 

Let  it  stand,  for  the  present,  as  an  insight  into  the  pristine  purity 
of  Egyptian  belief,  in  ages  prior  to  Abraham’s  visit ; and  let  the  con- 
stant expression  of  “ beloved  of  a god,”  “ loving  the  gods,”  like  the 
Hebrew,  “ dilectus  a domine  suo,  Samuel,”  (in  the  Vulgate,)  “ be- 
loved of  his  Lord,  Samuel attest  the  primeval  piety  of  the  Nilotic 
family  over  all  contemporary  nations,  whom  we  are  pleased  to  con- 
demn as  Pagans. 


NOTES  ON  EGYPTIAN  OBELISKS. 

The  term  Obelisk  is  derived  from  the  Latin  oleliscus,  a diminutive 
of  the  Greek  word  obelos,  meaning  literally  a spit,  to  indicate  the  pe- 
culiar form  of  this  species  of  monument ; on  the  same  classical  prin- 
ciple, that  in  our  day,  we  facetiously  designate  them  needles. 

With  more  propriety,  though  with  equal  foundation,  they  have  been 
termed  “ rays  of  the  sun  ;”  but,  us  the  Egyptians  had  apparently  no 
such  idea,  when  they  placed  them  before  their  gigantic  edifices,  we 
need  not  pause  to  inquire  into  the  reason  of  the  appellation. 

They  are  purely  historical  monoliths,  generally  of  syenite, 
cut  by  order  of  a Pharaoh,  and  placed  originally  in  pairs,  in  front  of 
large  royal  or  religious  buildings,  to  record  in  their  inscriptions,  the 
name,  titles,  and  dedicatory  offerings  of  the  monarch,  whose  munifi- 
cence and  piety  had  built,  repaired,  or  otherwise  embellished  the 
edifices  which  these  obelisks  adorned. 

The  obelisk,  on  the  cover  of  this  essay,  is  a copy  (with  one  or  two 
slight  inaccuracies)  of  the  one  still  erect  at  Heliopolis.  It  is  the  most  an. 
cient,  as  well  as  one  of  the  most  beautiful  extant,  dating  about  2070, 
II.  C.,  in  the  reign  of  Osortasen  the  1st— of  the  16th  Diospolitan  Dy- 
nasty. 

It  is  the  sole  remaining  one  of  a pair  that  stood  together  on  the 
same  spot  (perhaps  the  other  is  there  still,  under  the  alluvium,)  about 
647  years  ago,  in  the  time  of  the  Arab  historian,  Abd-el-Lateef ; 
and  confirms  the  rumors  handed  down  to  us  by  Herodotus  and  Pliny 
of  the  former  existence  of  an  obelisk  there. 

Its  height  is  about  sixty-one  feet,  and  its  base  six  and  a half.  It 
is  a beautiful  shaft  of  red  granite  from  the  quarries  of  Syene,  distant 
fix  hundred  and  forty  miles  from  its  present  site  to  which  it  was 
conveyed  by  Osortasen. 


I subjoin  Rosellini’s  translation. 


The  Ilorus, 


[Living  of  men,] 


Pharaoh, 


SUN  OFFERED  TO  THE 
WORLD, 


Lord  of  upper  and  tower  Egypt, 


the  living  of  men, 


Son  of  the  sun,. 


OSORTASEN, 


a 


tr 


beloved  of  the  spirits  In  the  region 
of  Pone, 


ever  living, 

life  of  mankind, 
resplendent  Horus. 

beneficent  deity, 


SUN  OFFERED  TO  THE 
WORLD, 


<$vho  has  begun  the  celebration  of 
his  two  panegyries  (i.  e.  general 
assemblies)  to  him  who  makes 
him, 


Vivifierfor  ever. 


That  is,  dedicated  to  Phrfe,  the  god  sun,  to  whom  was  dedicated 
the  eity,  on  the  ruins  of  which  this  obelisk  now  stands — termed  in 
hieroglyphics,  the  city  of  Phrb;  in  Greek,  Heliopolis,  the  city  of  the 
Sun  ; in  Hebrew,  On  and  Beth-Shemmim,  the  “ House  of  the  Sun 
in  Samcenic  Arabic,  Ain-es-shems,  fountain  of  the  Sun  ; and  in  the 
Darig,  er  colloquial  Arabic  of  the  present  day,  JSIatarceych,  fresh 
water,  from  the  purity  of  its  springs. 

As  an  instance  of  the  misconceptions,  still  prevailing  all  over  the 


30 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


world  on  Egyptian  subjects,  attributable  to  indifference  or  to  care- 
lessness  of  observation  ; for  which,  in  1843,  there  is  but  little  excuse, 
correct  information  being  now  accessible  to  all ; and  as  an  evidence 
that,  in  1843,  a man  who  knows  nothing  of  a subject,  should  at  least 
abstain  from  writing  about  it ; I extract  the  following  paragraphs 
from  “The  American  in  Paris,”  or  Heath’s  Picturesque  Annual  for 
1843 — by  Monsieur  Jules  Janin — pages  22  and  23 — on  the  obelisk 
of  Luqsor,  now  standing  in  the  Place  de  la  Concorde,  Paris. 

“ Picture  to  yourself  a single  block  of  stone  twenty.four  feet  high  ; 
its  color  a beautiful  red.  You  would  say  this  exquisite  stone  was 
transparent,  it  so  dazzles  you  with  its  beauty  : it  is  slender  and  deli- 
cate, and  is  covered  with  a thousand  hieroglyphical  characters,  which 
will  for  a long  time,  torment  the  Champollions  present  and  to  come. 
They  were  obliged  to  seek  this  long  stone  in  ihe.desert ; to  take  it 
down  from  its  almost  eternal  foundation,  where  It  had  stood  erect 
for  three  thousand  years.” 

“ To  come  from  so  great  a distance,  to  tear  Cleopatra's  needle 
from  its  base, to  bring  it  to  this  hole,  and  to  die  in  this  muddy  and  un- 
wholesome puddle  1” 

••  X have  seen  the  foolish  taking  root : but  suddenly  I cursed  his  habitation.”— Jod,  v.  3. 

Had  the  volatile  French  author,  or  his  equally  careless  English 
Iranslator,  taken  the  least  pains  to  inquire  (as  Mr.  Aldrich  has  done 
in  his  excellent  letter  from  Paris — vide  “New  World” — 25th  Feb- 
ruary, 1843)  before  they  wrote  the  sbove,  the  purchaser  of  Heath’s 
Picturesque  Annual  need  not  have  regretted  a portion  of  his  extrava- 
gant outlay. 

Monsieur  Janin’s  organs  of  vision  must  be  strangely  defective, 
and  must  disqualify  him  altogether  forjudging  of  the  sizes  and  heights 
of  anything  in  Paris  ; when  an  obelisk,  whose  shaft  measures  above 
seventy. five  feet  English,  should  dwindle  in  his  view  to  twenty-four. 
A schoolboy  could  have  given  him  better  information  at  a glance  ; 
nor  would  his  enlightened  Government  have  expended  two  millions 
of  francs,  to  transfer  the  obelisk,  termed  by  Monsieur  Janin,  a needle 
of  Cleopatra,  from  the  temple  of  Luqsor  at  Thebes  ; which  stands 
on  the  very  bank  of  the  Nile,  and  on  the  fertile  alluvium,  bounded 
on  three  sides  bv  verdant  fields — a long  walk  from  Monsieur  Janin’s 
desert.  The  chronological  era  indicated  for  Cleopatra,  B.  C.  1157, 
is  certainly  novel,  and  is  Monsieur  Janin’s  copyright.  Nor  is  the 
sentimental  lament  about  the  demise  “ of  this  long  stone”  calculated 
to  elevate  “ la  Place  de  la  Concorde”  in  the  opinion  of  those,  whose 
knowledge  of  Paris  is  derived  from  Monsieur  Janin’s  account. 

If  the  English  translator  had  sought  to  correct  his  original’s  pue- 
rilities, he  might  have  selected  the  following  exquisite  description  of 
the  two  obelisks  of  Luqsor,  from  the  Appendix  to  the  second  volume 
of  the  “ Egyptian  Antiquities,”  published  under  the  superintendence 
of  the  Society  for  the  diffusion  of  Useful  Knowledge,  in  the  Library 
of  entertaining  Knowledge — London  183G — page  375. 

“ Both  the  obelisks  are  in  a state  of  perfect  preservation  ; the 
larger  is  about  eighty-two  English  feet  high,  and  the  other  about 
three  hundred  and  thirty-six  feet  shorter.” 

Monsieur  Jules  Janin  informs  the  world  in  general,  that  the  inscrip- 
•ions  on  the  Parisian  obelisk  will,  “for  along  time  torment  the 
Champollions  present  and  to  come.”  He  writes  this  at  Paris,  as  his 
private  opinion,  in  the  autumn  of  1842. 

If  he  had  seen  fit  to  ask  in  any  Parisian  bookstore,  he  might  have 
found  a neat  pamphlet,  entitled  “ Salvolini’s  Translation,”  of  this 
identical  obelisk,  published  in  French,  about  1837.  Or  he  might,  at 
any  bookseller’s,  or  in  a decent  library  public  or  private,  have  read 
in  “ L’Univers  Pittoresque”,  Ancient  Egypt,  by  Champollion  Figeac, 
published  in  1840,  pages  78  to  84,  and  therefrom  have  gleaned  a 
complete  refutation  of  his  silly  assertion.  I will  suppose  that  Mon- 
sieur Janin  never  heard  of  Champollion  le  Jeune’s  “Lettres  ecrites 
de  l’Egypte  et  de  la  Nubie;”  published  at  Paris  in  1830,  because  it 
is  fashionable  to  make  use  of  Chanipollion’s  name,  and  to  write 
about  his  “mighty  discoveries,”  among  authors  who  have  not  the 
remotest  idea  of  what  those  discoveries  really  are. 

If  Monsieur  Janin  can  read  Italian,  he  might  have  consulted,  in 
nnv  Parisian  library,  Rosellini’s  “ Monumenti  dell’ Esritto  e della 
Nubia;”  vol.  3rd;  Monti  Storici ; part  2nd;  page  199,  et  seq. ; 
published  in  1839;  wherein  he  would  have  found  a translation  of  this 
identical  obelisk  verbatim  et  literatim.  Or  if  he  can  read  English, 
our  author,  before  he  issued  his  “ fadaises,”  might  have  looked  into 
Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson’s,  “ Topography  of  Thebes,”  pages  167-8  ; pub- 
lished in  London,  1835;  or  finally,  Monsieur  Janin  could  have  re- 
moved his  doubts,  had  he  deemed  it  expedient  to  peruse  the  “ Man- 
ners and  Customs  of  the  ancient  Egyptians  ;”  London,  first  series 
1837 — second  series  1841. 

In  reviews,  pamphlets,  periodicals,  travels,  &c.,  of  all  dates  since 
1836,  and  in  all  European  languages,  Monsieur  Janin  could  have 
been  edified  on  the  obelisk  of  Luqsor.  Nay,  had  he  inquired  of  a 
policeman  in  Paris,  the  fountain  source  of  hierological  science,  he 
might  have  enlightened  himself  on  this  twenty-four  feet  obelisk  in 
the  “ Place  de  la  Concorde  the  hieroglyphical  names  on  which, 
for  the  last  six  years,  have  been  transferred  to  the  French  govern- 
ment steamboats,  under  the  familiar  designations  of  “ Le  Rham- 
ses,”  “Le  Sesostris,”  plough  the  waters  of  the  Mediterranean  and 
Archipelago  ! 

Under  the  letter!!,!  have  given  an  extract  of  the  address  to  Ram- 


ses— Sesostris — from  the  obelisk  of  Luqsor,  viz. ; “ Thy  name  is  firm 
as  heaven  ; the  duration  of  thy  days  is  as  the  disc  of  the  sun.” 

Its  total  height  is,  French  feet  70,  inches  3,  lines  5.  Its  total 
weight  is  estimated  at  “ 220,528  kilogrammes,”  equivalent  to  4457 
quintals  ; or,  about  246  of  our  tons. 

It  was  cut  at  the  granite  quarries  of  Syene,  at  the  1st  Cataract,  by 
order  of  Ramses  2nd,  about  B.  C.  1570,  and  transported  to  Luqsor, 
distant  138  miles  ; when  the  medial  inscriptions  on  three  of  its  four 
faces,  were  engraven  in  honor  of  this  Pharaoh.  It  was  erected,  with 
its  fellow,  on  the  northern  front  of  the  Palace  of  this  Monarch  : whoso 
demise  occurring  before  the  fourth  central  column  of  inscriptions 
was  completed,  his  brother  and  successor,  Ramses  3rd — Sesostris — 
added  his  own  names,  titles,  and  dedications,  in  the  fourth  medial 
line  and  in  two  lateral  columns  on  each  face — about  B.  C.  1550. 

And  in  substance,  these  later  inscriptions  attest,  that  “ Ramses 
Amunmai,  Lord  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  son  of  the  male  and 
female  deities,  Lord  of  the  World,  Sun  Guardian  of  Truth,  approved 
of  the  Sun,  has  made  these  works,*  for  his  father,  Amun-Rha,t  and 
that  he  has  erected  these  two  great  Obelisks  in  hard  stone  before  the 
Ramsessiuml  of  the  city§  of  Amun.” 

In  conclusion,  every  Egyptian  obelisk,  existing  in  any  part  of  tho 
world,  is  now  well-known  ; and  the  entire  inscriptions,  on  each  one, 
are  translated  and  published. 

Those  now  at  Alexandria  were  cut  at  Syene,  by  Thotmes  4th — ■ 
Meeris — 750  miles  from  their  present  site,  as  far  back  as  1720  B.  C. 
He  caused  the  central  inscriptions  on  the  four  faces  to  be  sculptured, 
and  transferred  them  to  Thebes  or  Memphis.  Ramses  3rd,  about 
B.  C.,  1550,  added  the  lateral  inscriptions ; and,  in  later  times,  an. 
other  Pharaoh  engraved  his  own  names  and  titles.  Subsequently  to 
B.  C.  300,  the  Ptolemies,  to  embellish  their  Greco-Egyptian  capital, 
transferred  them  to  Alexandria,  w'here  they  were  placed  in  front  of 
some  great  public  edifice  (probably  before  the  sea-ward  gate  of  the 
palace)  and  where  they  are  still  supposed,  by  ninety-nine  out  oi  a 
hundred,  to  have  served  Cleopatra  as  darning  needles. 

The  obelisk  in  the  Hippodrome  at  Constantinople,  is  also  a work 
of  Thotmes  4th.  Those  at  Rome  bear  inscriptions  of  various  Pha- 
raohs, and  Roman  Emperors.  Of  all  the  obelisks,  the  largest  and 
most  beautiful  is  that  of  Karnac,  at  Thebes  ; cut  by  Queen  Amense, 
about  B.  C.,  1760  ; it  is  a single  shaft  of  the  purest  and  most  ex- 
quisitely polished  syenite,  in  height  about  90  feet,  and  in  weight 
about  400  tons. 

In  elucidating  the  numerous  pictorial  illustrations  of  my  subsequent 
lectures,  in  addition  to  the  various  hieroglyphical  texts  already  sub- 
mitted to  the  reader,  I shall  have  occasion  to  apply  all  the  grammat- 
ical rules  and  syntactical  inflections,  which  might  have  been  ex- 
pounded in  the  course  of  this  chapter.  I purposely  abstain  from  the 
dry  exposition  of  the  parts  of  speech  ; as  tew  would  relish  the  sub- 
ject of  hieroglyphical  articles  ; declension  of  substantives  ; pronouns 
isolated,  affixed,  prefixed,  possessive,  conjunctive,  demonstrative,  or 
vague  ; verbs  of  every  variety,  with  their  regular  or  irregular  conju- 
gations, in  persons,  cases,  moods,  and  tenses ; participles,  and 
gerunds  ; prepositions ; adverbs  ; adjectives  ; conjunctions  ; or  inter- 
jections. The  curious  in  these  matters  are  referred  to  that  sublime 
mental  achievement — Champollion’s  Grammar  of  Egyptian  Hiero- 
glyphics— whence  I have  selected  the  more  prominent  subjects  of 
this  chapter. 

I have  a copy  of  this  grammar ; but  a more  recent  and  better 
digested  condensation  of  grammatical  hierology.  is  “ Dr.  Leipsius’s 
Letter  to  Prof.  Roseliini”— Rome,  1836.  I read  it  in  Egypt ; and  it 
is  one  of  more  than  a hundred  volumes,  published  in  Europe  within  the 
last  twenty  years,  which,  so  far  as  I have  been  able  to  learn,  are  not 
to  be  found  in  any  public  library  in  this  country. || 

* Works — meaning  the  Palace  of  Luqsor.  The  word  Luqsor  is  Arabic,  and  means 
“ the  -palaces." 

t Jhnun~Rha—\h(t  supreme  God  of  Egypt. 

t Ramsessium— the  modern  hierological  name  for  edifices  onhe  Ramses— since  tlie 
hieroglyphical  name  of  them  is  “ the  habitation  of  the  Ramses.  1 he  so  called  Mem- 
iionium  is  also  a Ramsessium.  . . ,,  . 

§ City  of  Amun — the  ancient  name  of  Thebes — Liospolis  in  Greek  the  city  of  Jovo 
The  hieroglyphics  of  tins  name  will  he  found  hereinafter. 

I!  As  an  evidence  that  I am  not  talking  idly,  1 subjoin  a Catalogue  sent  me,  from 
E.vpt  by  the  erudite  Dr.  Leipsius,  of  the  works  he  has  published  on  Archeology  since 
1833  Four  only  of  these  have  I had  the  advantage  of  consulting.  I have  seen  extracts 
andreviews  of  some  of  the  others ; hut,  not  having  been  aide  to  meet  with  a single  volume 
of  them  since  I crossed  the  Atlantic,  there  are  many  with  which  I ain  unacquainted. 

" In  Latin — De  Tabulis  Eugubiuis  ; Berolini,  8vo„  1833.  In  German— Paleography, 
as  a means  of  linguistical  researches,  demonstrated  in  the  Sanscrit;  Berlin,  8vo.,  183o. 
1842  Comparisons  of  the  names  of  number,  in  the  Indo-Germamr,  Semitic,  and  Egyp- 
tian" languages,  1835.  Oil  the  origin  and  order  of  Alphabets  among  the  Greeks,  He- 
brews nncient  Persians,  Indians,  Ethiopians,  and  Egyptians,  8vo.,  1836.  In  french— 
Letter  on  the  Hieroglyphical  Alphabet,  Rome,  1836  On  the  order  of  “Culonnes- 
niliers”  in  Egypt ; Rome,  1838.  In  Aatrn-Inscriptiones  Umhricie  etOsoie ; Leipsra;,  1841. 
In  German — On  the  Architecture  of  the  Normans  in  Sicily,  Normandy,  and  England, 
1 vol  with  23  plates ; Leipsic,  1841.  The  Funereal  Ritual. of  the  Egyptians,  translation, 
with  79  nlntes * 1811  On  the  Pelasgians.  On  the  Monetary  System  of  the  Etruscans. 
Selection  of  tlie  most  important  documents  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians,  in  progress  o 
Dublication-  1842.  Dissertations  in  the  “Annals  of  the  Archeological  Institute. 
Rome-  1835  to  1839  On  a Vase,  with  inscriptions.  Observations  on  anEtruscan  Vase, 
with  two  Greek,  and  one  Pelasgic  inscriptions.  On  the  value  of  an  Etruscan  letter. 
Notice  of  two  Egyptian  Statutes;  Analysis  of  their  inscriptions.  Notice  of  the  Lau- 
rel efi  at  Beyroot.  Dissertations,  in  the  “ Bulletins  ol  the  Arclueological  Institute:’ 
Ji(S  t i 1838.  On  an  Etruscan  Sarcophagus.  On  a Su.tue  at  Tad,  On  two  Egypt, a. 

I OMovsi  at  Berlin.  In  the  “ Literary  Gazette  1839,  on  the  Obehsk  of  Phil®,  m Eng 
I |;°d  La’ter  to  Mons. Lenomutot,  on  the  Inscriptions  in  the  great  Pyramid;  Pans 

1S3S>. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


SI 


That  great  work,  Chamfollion’s  Monuments  of  Egypt  and  of 
Nubia,  exists  only  in  the  private  libraries  of  Francis  C.  Gray,  Esq., 
and  the  Hon.  John  Pickering,  of  Boston,  besides  a portion  in  my 
own  possession.  Prof.  Rosellini’s  “ Monumenti  dell  ’Egitto  e della 
Nubia,”  is  to  be  found  only  in  the  library  of  R.  K.  Haight,  Esq.,  of 
this  city,  although  ten  years  have  elapsed  since  the  1st  volume  of  text 
end  the  1st  livraison  of  plates  appeared. 

I have  heard,  on  undoubted  authority,  that  about  six  years  ago,  a 
copy  of  these  first  portions  of  Rosellini  was  sent  to  the  United 
States,  and  shown  to  many  of  the  leading  publishers  and  librarians 
from  Boston  to  Washington  ; but  as  not  even  the  Congressional  Li- 
brary deemed  its  acquisition  worth  the  expense  (1000  francs  at  Paris, 
or  less  than  two  hundred  dollars,)  it  was  returned  to  Europe.  I am 
nware,  that  from  Boston,  and  from  Philadelphia  orders  for  the  most 
important  hierological  works  have  been  since  sent  to  the  Continent 
and  to  England. 

If,  therefore,  I have  now  the  gratification  of  laying,  before  an 
American  public,  views  upon  Egypt,  as  novel  in  nature  as  in  results 
surprising,  the  advantage  does  not  accrue  to  me  from  my  own  capa- 
city or  acquirements,  but  from  the  fact,  that  in  this  country,  the  labors 
of  the  Champollionists  have,  by  the  mass,  been  disregarded. 

And  yet,  monthly,  there  issue  from  the  press  of  this  country,  as  in 
England,  and  even  on  the  Continent,  works  on  every  subject  bearing 
upon  Nilotic  paleography.  Travels,  biblical  commentaries,  histories 
of  primi.ive  times,  Encyclopedias,  learned  and  unlearned  disquisi- 
tions affecting  ancient  Egyptian  questions.  Whenever  they  are  not 
penned  with  a knowledge  of  what,  in  the  last  fifteen  years,  has  been 
accomplished  by  the  Champollion  school,  they  are,  in  1843,  valueless 
on  Ancient  Egypt. 

Arc  not,  however,  Egyptian  studies,  and  the  mythology,  philoso. 
phy,  and  doctrines  of  that  misrepresented  race,  interesting  to  the 
divine  who  attests  the  unity  of  the  Godhead  and  the  holy  Trinity? 
Can  the  theologian  derive  no  light  from  the  pure  primeval  faith,  that 
glimmers  from  Egyptian  hieroglyphics,  to  illustrate  the  immortality 
of  the  soul  and  a final  resurrection?*  Will  not  the  historian  deign 
to  notice  the  prior  origin  of  every  art  and  science  in  Egypt,  a thou- 
sand years  before  the  Pelasgians  studded  the  isles  and  capes  of  the 
Archipelago  with  their  forts  and  temples?  long  before  Etruscan  civili- 
zation had  smiled  under  Italian  skies  ? And  shall  not  the  ethnogra- 
pher, versed  in  Egyptian  lore,  proclaim  the  fact,  that  the  physiological, 
craniological,  capillary  and  cuticular  distinctions  of  the  human  race 
existed,  on  the  first  distribution  of  mankind  throughout  the  earth  ? 

Philologists,  astronomers,  chemists,  painters,  architects,  physicians, 
must  return  to  Egypt,  to  learn  the  origin  of  language  and  writing — 
of  the  calendar  and  solar  motion — of  the  art  of  cutting  granite  with  a 
copper  chisel  and  of  giving  elasticity  to  a copper  sword — of  making 
glass  with  the  variegated  hues  of  the  rainbow — of  moving  single 
blocks  of  polished  syenite,  900  tons  in  weight,  for  any  distance,  by 
land  and  wa'er — of  building  arches,  round  and  pointed,  with  masonic 
precision  unsurpassed  at  the  present  day  and  antecedent,  by  2000 
years,  to  the  “ Cloaca  Magna  ” of  Rome — of  sculpturing  a Doric 
column,  1000  years  before  the  Dorians  are  known  in  history — of 
fresco  painting  in  imperishable  colors — und  of  practical  knowledge 
in  anatomy. 

Every  craftsman  can  behold,  in  Egyptian  monuments,  the  progress 
of  his  art  4000  years  ago  ; and,  whether  it  be  a wheelwright  building 
a chariot — a shoemaker  drawing  his  twine — a leather-cutter  using 
the  self-same  form  of  knife  of  old,  as  is  considered  the  best  form 
now — a weaver  throwing  the  same  hand-shuttle — a whitesmith  using 
that  identical  form  of  blowpipe,  but  lately  recognized  to  be  the  most 
efficient — the  seal-engraver  cutting,  in  hieroglyphics,  such  names  as 
Shoopiio’s,  above  4300  years  ago — or  even  the  poulterer  removing 
the  pip  from  geese — all  these,  and  many  more  astounding  evidences 
of  Egyptian  priority,  now  require  but  a glance  at  the  plates  of 
Rosellini. 

* It  is  vain,  in  the  present  enlightened  age,  to  shrink  from  the  astounding  evidences 
of  a pure  revealed  religion,  in  existence  among  the  Gentiles,  in  nges  anterior  to  Ahra- 
bnnt  and  Moses;  or,  with  Tr.rluliiun,  To  anathematize  these  important  inquiries;  or, 
with  him,  to  attribute  the  pure  doctrines  of  remote  antiquity,  to  the  forethought  and 
machinations  ot  the  spirit  of  darkness. 

” What  though  Moses  did  write  when  the  world  had  grown  old ! 

The  ‘‘wisdom  of  Egypt  had  then  ever  long  told, 

That  *'  in  the  beginning  God  created  ’’  this  world. 

And  that  every  swift  star  from  his  own  hand  was  hurl’d. 

We  will  once  more  repeat,  what  though  Moses  did  write, 

That  in  the  beginning  ‘‘God  said.  Let  there  he  light;” 

‘‘All  the  wisdom  ” he  spake  was  hut.  Egypt’s  oltl  lore. 

Thence  he  learned  all  he  knew,  there  ‘tvvas  taught  long  before. 

Though  Moses  **  was  leartt’d  in  all  the  wisdom”  of  yore, 

Diospolitan  cruft,  arid  Heltopolite  lore  ; 

Vet  in  those  latter  days,  the  blind  “ wisdom  ” of  man. 

No  more  saw  the  spirit  of  Jehovah’s  great  plan. 

The  myst’ries  of  Heaven,  through  hold  divination. 

Profanely  were  grnsped  at,  and  called  revelation  : 

When  Moses  sojourned  with  the  Arabian  sage. 

His  **  wisdom  ” was  worldly,  like  the  lore  of  that  age. 

But  when  Inspiration  was  vouchsafed  him  at  last, 

Then  the  bright  light  of  Truth  dashed  full  o’er  the  past ; 

Then  mystic  Traditions  received  explanation. 

The  Symbolical  page  became  Revelation ” 

'*  The  Hierojihant.*.” 

These  views  of  R.  K.  H.  are  perfectly  in  accordance  with  present  high-church  ortho- 
doxy. Independently  of  the  numerous  theological  and  other  references,  contained  in 
the  previous  clmpter,  I again  quote  the  authority  of  Hales,  Lamb,  Faber  and  Allix. 


Can  the  enthusiasm  of  a hierologist  be  doubted  ? or  is  it  to  be 
supposed  that  such  lights  are  to  continue  under  the  shadows  of 
indifference,  or  be  extinguished  by  the  doubts  of  self-complacent  scep- 
ticism ? that  the  oil  which  feeds  the  paleographer’s  lamp  shall  freeze 
in  a gelid  shade  ? that  the  stupified  ban  of  heterodoxy  shall  thwart 
an  archteologist’s  labors  ? It  cannot  be.  It  will  not  be.  It  is  but 
to  place  the  facts  before  the  American  public,  and  we  shall  soon 
exclaim  with  Galileo,  “ma  pur  si  muove,”  but  yet  it  moves. 

A very  few  of  these  facts  are  herein  submitted  to  the  reader. 
Cheerfully  do  I contribute  my  mite  to  advance  the  cause  of  literature 
and  science,  by  furnishing  the  key  to  the  profound  labors  of  others. 
As  of  erst  a free-trader  in  commerce,  so  now  in  the  capacity  of  a 
free-trader  in  literature,  the  writer  tenders  to  the  public  through  the 
cheapest  mode  of  diffusion,  such  information  as  he  may  possess  on 
ancient  Egyptian  subjects ; which  he  has  derived  from  the  works  of 
others,  as  they,  in  general,  obtained  their  knowledge  from  the  con- 
templation of  antiquity  through  the  medium  of  their  predecessors. 
We  all  of  us  are  merely  passing  on,  from  hand  to  hand,  the  learning 
of  our  forefathers,  fashioned  according  to  tonventional  models  that 
we  can  rarely  call  our  own. 

I am  unwilling  to  close  this  dissertation  on  the  language  and  wri- 
ting of  the  ancient  Egyptians,  without  adverting  to  two  points,  upon 
which  much  interesting  investigation  can  be  pursued. 

The  first  regards  the  numerous  affinities  traceable  between  the 
Hebrew  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Nilotic  sacred,  or  classical  lan- 
guage on  the  other.  Critical  analysis  and  comparative  chronological 
collations  may  serve  to  establish,  by  logical  deduction,  the  relative 
antiquity  of  both  tongues.  My  own  impression  is,  that  the  result 
would  establish  a common  primeval  origin  for  this,  as  in  other  ques- 
tions ; or  compel  an  acknowledgment  of  the  priority  of  the  Egyptian 
tongue.  We  have  now,  however,  indisputable  evidence  of  the 
Asiatic  origin  and  Caucasian  race  of  the  earliest  denizens  of  the  Nile  ; 
and  can  smile  at  the  long-asserted  descent  of  civilization  from  Ethi- 
opia, (that  unknown  land  of  fable)  or,  at  the  idea  of  its  origin  among 
any  African  tribe.  This  will  be  made  clear  in  the  sequel  ; and  this 
fact  will  remove  a host  of  dilemmas,  by  tracing  Hebrews  and  Egyp- 
tians to  a probably-simultaneous  departure  from  their  common  Asiatic 
hive. 

In  the  first  chapter,  I maintained,  that  it  has  been  too  customary 
to  seek  in  trifles  for  confirmations  of  scriptural  authority,  where  none 
exist ; and  it  has  often  happened,  that,  while  making  parade  of  little 
circumstances,  which  have  a very  small  bearing  on  the  truths  of  the 
Bible,  the  more  important  confirmations  are  overlooked. 

Modern  hierology,  however,  begins  to  throw  light  on  the  Penta- 
teuch; and  I will  give  the  following  example  (one  of  many  similar) 
in  confirmation  of  Acts  vii.  22,  that  “ Moses*  was  learned  in  all 
the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians  and  in  corroboration  of  the  assurance 

of  St.  Clement  ( of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  194,)  that  “ the  symbols 

of  the  Egyptians  are  similar  to  those  of  the  Hebrews.”  Stromates  V.t 

From  the  earliest  times,  in  ages  long  anterior  to  Abraham’s  visit, 
among  the  Egyptians,  the  asp  was  an  emb'ein  of  royalty  ; us 

its  Greek  name  basilisk  implie  s.  The  asp  was  typical  of,  and 
sacred  to,  the  god  Neph,  wliic  h deity  was  an  incarnation  of 
the  “ spirit  of  God.”  It  had  1 ^✓^ikewise  other  significations  con- 
nected with  mythology.  Every  Pharaoh  bears  the  asp  on  his  crown. 
In  the  Egyptian  language,  a king  was  called  Ouro,  which,  with  the 
article  Pi  prefixed  (Coptice  ; “ the”)  becomes  Pi-ouro  “ the  king,” 
to  which  has  been  traced  the  origin  of  the  word  Pharaoh  : but  I 
prefer  the  derivation  indicated  first  by  Wilkinson  and  perfected  by 
Rosellini,  whereby  Pharaoh  is  derived  from  Phre,  or  Phra,  the 
god  Sun.  This  deity  was  symbolized  by  the  Hawk-headed 

god,  surmounted  by  the  solar  disc,  and  sac  ^^*red  asp,  holding 
the  emblem  of  eternal  life.  The  hawk  w'x  ffiias  sacred  to,  and 
typical  of  the  god  Sun.  Phre  was  also  sy  CvJ  I tnbolized  by  the 
image  of  the  sun  itself,  as  in  the  prenomen  — * ovals  of  Egyptian 
royal  names,  / N.  the  solar  orb.  Josephus  tells  us,  that  the  word 
Pharaoh  mef  • )ant  king  ; and  as  the  image  of  the  Sun  on  earth  ; 
an  incarnatio  n of  solar  dominion  and  benevolence;  the  king 

of  Egypt  was  symbolized,  in  the  sacred  character,  by  the  “ solar 


* By  the  way,  the  name  of  Moses \t/  A aMSS,  or  Mcs,  was  strictly  Egyptian. 
In  signification,  it  means  rebegotten , ^T\  1 1 11  regenerated,  initiated  in  the  myste- 
ries. It  is  recognizable  in  other  com  J I 1 'I  ■ lpotind  proper  names,  ns  Thotmts , 
or  Thothmoses,  begotten  of  the  god,  I 1 I ■ Thoth  ; or  in  Humeses,  begotten  of 

the  god,  Ra.  The  first  sign  of  the  three  symbols  above,  M.  is  figurative  ot  the  dew  and 
symbolic  of  baptism,  in  hieroglyphics  : ns  the  word  Muses  signifies  in  the  Hebrew  roots, 
MSCHE  meaning  saved,  and  MSCHHE  anointed.  Baptism,  by  fire  and  water,  was 
one  of  the  ceremonies  that  initiated  the  neophyte  into  the  Egyptian  mysteries.  I he 
Hebrew  of  Exodus  ii.  10,  means  “ saved  by  wuter,”  as  well  ‘saved  front  wuter. 
Artapanus,  in  his  work  concerning  the  Jews,  says,  that  a queen  of  Egypt,  having  no 
children,  adopted  and  brought  up  a child  of  the  Jews,  and  named  it  Moyscs.  Ma- 
netho,  according  to  Josephus,  speaking  of  the  Exodus  of  the  Israelites,  states,  thnt 
the  priest,  who  ordained  their  polity  and  laws,  was  of  Heliopolis  by  birth,  and  h.s  name 
was  Osarsiph,  from  Osiris  the  god  of  Heliopolis:  but  that  when  he  went  over  to  these 
people,  his  name  was  changed,  and  he  was  called  Moyscs.  Cb$remon  records,  that 
the  leaders  of  the  Jews,  when,  (according  to  his  statement)  they  were  expelled  from 
Egypt,  ‘‘were  two  scribes  called  Moyses  and  Josephus,  the  latter  of  whom  was  a 
sacred’seribe”— alluding  probably  to  Aaron.  Diodorus,  Lysimachus,  and  Polkmon 
confirm  the  name  and  the  deeds  of  Moyses. 

1 1 have  compiled  this  portion  of  my  essay,  chiefly  from  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson’s  **  Man 
ners  and  Customs;”  Portal  “ Symbolesdes  Egyptiens;”  and  “ Conleurs  Symboliques; 
Dr.  Lamb  “on  the  Hebrew  alphabet;”  Cury's  “ Horug-apollo  and  “Ancient 
Fragments.” 


32 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


orb.”  In  the  Bible,  this  name  of  the  kings  of  Egypt  is,  in  the  orig- 
inal Hebrew  letters,  spelt  Plirah  ; rendered  Pharaoh  in  our  version, 
and  corrupted  into  the  sound  of  Fayray-o.  So  strangely  has  this 
appropriate  title  of  the  monarch  of  Egypt  deviated  from  its  natural 
sound,  and  simple  application,  that  at  the  present  day,  in  Arabic, 
when  one  man  calls  another  “Yii  Phara,don,  ebn -Pharaoon,” 
“thou  Pharaoh,  son  of  a Pharaoh,”  he  fancies  that  he  has  heaped 
upon  his  head  the  ne-plus-ultra  of  opprobrium  ! 

Every  Pharaoh  was  the  sun  of  Egypt;  and  over  his  name  bore 
“ Son  of  the  Sun  ;”  and  as  the  sun  was  Phra,  so  each  king 
was  called  Phra  in  common  parlance,  as  we  say  king. 
-ffTtjEig ijE'ach  monarch  by  law  inherited  his  father’s  throne  in  lineal 
ifir  succession;  so  that  the  incumbent  was  Phra,  son  of  Phra, 

literally  “ Sun,  son  of  the  Sun  ;”  as  in  the  East,  at  present, 
the  Ottoman  Emperor  is  termed  by  the  Arabs,  Sooltdn,  ebn  Sooltdn, 
emperor,  son  of  an  emperor. 

It  is  essential  to  observe,  that  the  sun,  or  god  Phra,  or  Phre,  was 
also  more  frequently  written  Re,  or  Rd.  And,  as  Wilkinson  re- 
marks, Phre  is  merely  lie,  with  the  article  Pi  prefixed,  pronounced 
Pire,  the  Sun,  in  the  Theban  dialect,  and  Phre  in  the  Memphitic. 

To  the  root  Ra,  Sun  (the  designatory  title  of  a Pharaoh,)  we  may 
readily  trace  Onto — royalty ; typified  by  the  asp  with  his  tail  coiled 
under  him.  This  symbol  was,  by  the  Greeks,  termed  Ouraios — 
OvpaToa — j3a<rt\!eKoc — royal ; and  is  our  Urseus.  Thus  Ra  and 
Ouro  are  embraced  in  the  idea  of  the  sun  (the  deity  of  the  solar  orb) 
and,  in  Hebrew,  the  name  of  the  sun  was  (g>  k a /J 
from  the  same  original  root  of  Ra,  Ouro,  J j 4+ 1 1 fY^ 

Aur. 

In  Egyptian  mythology,  Thme  was  the  goddess  of  Truth  and 
Justice.  To  indicate  her  strict  impartiality,  she  is  often  represented, 
in  her  judicial  capacity,  with  her  eyes  covered — thus : 

Thme — holding  in  her  hand  “eternal 
life  ;”  the  feather  of  truth  (an  ostrich 
feather,)  surmounts  her  cap  ; her  eyes 
are  covered  by  a species  of  blinkers. 

Just  as  we  copy  the  original  Egyptian 
idea,  when  we  paint  Justice  with  her 
eyes  bandaged. 

The  judges  in  Egypt,  wore  golden 
chains  around  their  necks,  to  which  was 
suspended  a small  figure  of  Thme,  orna- 
mented with  jewels;  being  Thme  in  her 
double  capacity  of  Justice  and  Truth. 
For,  owing  to  the  wise  administration  of 
their  laws,  the  denizens  of  the  Nile  could, 
with  propriety,  call  their  native  land  “ the  region  of  justice  and 
truth,”  and  “ the  country  of  purity  and  justice,”  in  contradistinction 
to  the  irregular  nomadic  habits  of  the  less  civilized  and  barbarian 
nations  of  Africa  and  Asia,  to  them  adjacent. 

Some  of  these  judicial  breastplates  are  extant  in  European  mu- 
seums ; others  are  to  be  seen  on  the  monuments,  as 

containing  the  figures  of  two  deities ; 
Ra,  the  sun  ; and  Thme.  These,  herein, 
represent  the  Ra,  or  the  sun  in  a double 
capacity  ; physical  and  intellectual  light, 
and  Thme,  in  a double  capacity — justice 
and  truth. 

I have  shown  that,  in  Hebrew,  the 

sun  was  called  Aur ; and,  in  the  same  language,  truth  is  the  word 
THME,  integritas,  aMidc ta.  Again,  in  Hebrew,  the  double  capacity 
of  anything  is  expressed  by  the  dual  number ; thus,  the  word 
Aur,  becomes  in  the  dual,  Aurim. 

Thme,  becomes  in  the  dual,  Thmim. 

Now  turn  to  Exodus  xxviii.,  II — speaking  of  the  Ephod  : “ with 
the  work  of  an  engraver  in  stone,  like  the  engravings  of  a signet 
(that  is,  in  symbolic,  and  not  in  alphabetic  characters)  shalt  thou 
engrave  the  two  stones,”  Idem  xxviii. — “ and  they  shall  bind  the 
breastplate  by  the  rings  (which,  in  verses  22  and  24,  are  said  to  be 
“ wreathen  chains  of  gold,”)  thereof  unto  the  rings  of  the  ephod  with 
a lace  of  blue,  that  it  may  be  above  the  curious  girdle  of  the  ephod,  and 
that  the  breastplate  be  not  loosed  from  the  ephod.”  Idem  xxix. — Aaron 
the  high  priest,  is  to  wear  the  “ breastplate  of  judgment  upon  his 
heart” — in  the  same  manner  as  the  Egyptian  judges,  who  were  all 
high  priests,  wore  their  breastplates — verse  30 — “and  thou  shalt  put 
in  the  breastplate  of  judgment  the  Urim  and  the  Thummim  ;”  that  is, 
as  the  commentator  e*xp!ains  in  the  margin,  “ the  lights  and  perfec- 
tions ” — equivalent  to  the  Egyptian  double  symbolic  capacity  of  R a, 
the  sun  or  light ; and  the  double  symbolical  character  of  Thmb  or 
perfections. 

Are  not  the  “ symbols  of  the  Egyptians  similar  to  those  of  the 
Hebrews  ?”  Did  not  Moses,  “ learned  in  all  the  wisdom  of  the 
Egyptians,”  follow  in  the  Aurim  and  Thmim  of  the  Hebrew  judicial 
breastplates,  the  symbolical  method  and  long  anterior  types  used  by 
the  Egyptian  high  priests  ? Can  we  suppose  this  similarity  to  be 
the  effect  of  chance  ? Must  we  not  attribute  the  identity  to  a com- 
mon primeval  and  sacred  source,  more  remote  than  the  establish- 
ment of  either  nation  ? In  both  nations,  none  but  the  Arch  Judges, 
and  high  priests,  could  wear  the  breastplate  of  lights  and  perfections. 


But,  by  the  application  of  symbolic  colors,  we  can  go  deeper  into 
the  analogy ; which  brings  me  to  the  second  point  of  my  closing 
passages. 

Blue,  as  may  be  seen  throughout  the  xxviii  chapter  of  Exodus,  was 
a component  principle  in  the  mystical  decorations  of  the  Ephod. 
Blue,  in  Hebrew,  was  typified  by  a sapphire,  a precious  stone  of  a 
blue  color,  called  S P H I R.  This  word  comes  from 
the  root  S P H R,  which  signifies, 
in  Hebrew,  to  write,  to  speak,  to 
celebrate,  as  likewise  a scribe,  a 
writing,  a book. 

The  Old  Testament  is  termed  Sepher,  the  book,  “par  excellence ;” 
as  the  Muslim  terms  his  Koran,  the  book,  “ El-Ketab ;”  or  as  we 
say,  the  Scripture,  for  holy  writ.* 

Blue  the  color,  sapphire  the  stone,  and  all  the  varied  meanings  of 
the  root  S P H R,  combine  in  the  Book,  as  the  Word  of  God,  the 
wisdom  of  the  Almighty,  inclosed  in  the  sacred  Sepher  of  the  Jews, 
the  Old  Testament. 

In  Egypt,  the  god  Amun,  called  by  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  Jove, 
as  a deified  derivative  of  the  mystic  Jehovah — is  lord  of  the  gods  of 
Egyptian  mythology — and  one  of  a Triad,  (Amun,  the  male  ; Maut, 
the  female,  and  Khonso,  the  offspring,)  whose  combination  ex- 
presses, “demiurge  intellect,  mother,  and  created  things” — attri- 
butes of  the  true  God. 


A MuN,  in  his  usual  form.  On 
Egyptian  monuments  Amun  is  always 
painted  (where  in  this  cut  he  is  repre- 
sented black)  of  a blue  color.  Ilia 
place  in  the  scale  of  divine  attributes  is 
✓vVV'Aiudicated  above. 

In  Hebrew  the  word  A M N 

Jt/mum, 

identical  with  the  hieroglyphical  name, 
meaning  truth,  wisdom ; and  typified  by 
the  sapphire,  the  blue  jewel,  is  the  Word 
of  God,  inclosed  in  the  Sepher,  the  Old 
Testament. 

The  Egyptian  hierogrammates  wore 
on  their  breasts  a sapphire,  a blue  stone, 
on  which  was  engraven  symbolically, 
like  “ a signet,”  the  image  of  Thmd  in 
her  double  character,  symbolical  of 
Justice  and  Truth,  identical  in  sound 
and  meaning  with  the  Hebrew  word 
for  justice  and  truth.  The  high  priest 
of  the  Hebrews  wore  on  his  breast  a 
blue  stone,  on  which  were  symbolically 
(like  “a  signet”)  engraven  words, 
identical  with  the  Egyptian  in  signifi- 
cation, called  Thmim  or  Thummim, 


the  Two  Truths  ! 

This  is  a specimen  of  the  application  of  symbolic  colors  to  the 
elucidation  of  early  mythes.  It  is  proved  beyond  doubt,  by  Portal, 
that,  from  the  remotest  times,  colors  had  a symbolical  meaning ; and 
that  remarkable  analogies  exist  in  regard  to  the  mystical  acceptation 
of  every  color,  among  the  Persians,  Indians,  Chinese,  Hebrews, 
Egyptians,  Greeks  and  Romans,  preserved  during  the  middle  ages 
of  Christianity — the  last  relics  of  which  remain  to  our  day  in 
Heraldry. 

The  study  of  primitive  arts  and  doctrines,  whether  in  respect  to 
the  origin  of  writing,  or  to  the  sources  of  the  Unity  in  Trinity, 
identical  with  the  fountain  springs  of  our  sublimest  conceptions, 
leads,  by  different  roads,  invariably  to  the  same  point,  the  common 
primeval  origin  of  all  things ; and  attests  that  the  God  of  Israel  was 
the  God  of  the  Brahmans  ; the  God  of  the  Chaldeans  : as  Champol- 
lion’s  discoveries  enable  us  to  hope,  that,  shrouded  under  the  veil  of 
the  sanctuary,  he  was  likewise  the  Deity  of  those  who  were  initiated 
in  the  mysteries  of  the  early  Egyptians. 


CHAPTER  FOURTH. 

The  first  of  my  three  previous  discourses  contained  a sketch  of  the 
rise  and  progress  of  hieroglyphical  discovery — with  bibliographical 
notices,  and  biographical  digressions — whereby  we  have  been  able  to 
form  an  idea  of  what  has  been  published  in  Egyptian  archaeology  up 
to  the  close  of  1841.  The  second  was  a brief  inquiry  into  the  origin 
of  the  art  of  writing.  The  third  explained  the  construction  of  the  an- 
cient language  of  the  Egyptians — their  mode  of  writing,  and  varied 


* Our  word  Bible  itself  originates  in  the  same  manner,  from  bi/blus,  the  Greek  nnme 
for  papyrus.  the  material  out  of  which  the  first  paper  was  made:  as  in  papyrus  we  find 
the  root  paper.  The  Latin  name  for  a hook  was  liber,  derived  from  the  name  of  the 
inner  bark  of  trees,  from  which  the  Romans  manufactured  paper.  Byblus,  the  plant, 
gave  to  the  Greeks  their  name  for  paper,  and  paper  their  name  for  a book  in  T0  /Ji/SXtiov. 
The  Scriptures  were  termed,  by  the  early  Greek  Christians,  “ the  Book, "or  To  Bibtcion; 
whence  we  obtain  the  name  of  Bible,  which  is  exclusively  applied  to  the  Old  and  .New 
Testaments,  The  root  sepher,  associated  with  learning  and  knowledge,  may  be  traced 
Into  a great  number  of  languages. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


33 


methods  of  expressing  ideas  ; with  some  translations  of  hieroglyph! 
cal  legends  of  all  ages,  and  various  kinds,  from  the  remotest  discerni- 
ble post-diluvian  period,  down  to  the  third  century  of  the  Christian 
era. 

I could  wish  that  this  my  4th  discourse,  should  treat  at  once  on  the 
History  of  Egypt  and  of  its  venerable  monarchs,  as  the  numerous 
Illustrations  drawn  from  the  monuments  would  have  secured  your 
attention  ; while  the  application  of  hieroglyphical  explanation  to 
events  coeval  with,  anterior,  or  subsequent  to  Abraham,  Joseph  and 
Moses,  would  have  excited  your  curiosity  and  your  interest. 

But  reflection  has  convinced  me,  that  before  venturing  to  speak  of 
times  prior  to  the  Pyramids,  or  contemporary  with  them  : before 
launching  into  ages  and  occurrences  attested  by  monumental  chron- 
icles, belonging  to  periods  positively  (though  in  remoteness  scarce 
definably)  dating  previously  to  the  year  2000,  B.  C.,  it  is  better  to 
examine  some  chronological  questions.  It  will  be  conceded,  were 
not  such  my  course,  that  when  I speak  with  all  the  certainty  of  con- 
scientious conviction  of  Egyptian  events,  dating,  say  between  the 
years  2500  and  3000,  B.  C.,  or  above  4000  years  ago,  some  of  my 
readers  might  reasonably  imagine  that  I am  thereby  setting  my  face 
in  direct  opposition  to  the  authority  of  Scripture.  They  would  be 
startled,  perhaps  shocked,  at  my  indiscretion ; and  the  writer  would 
fall  in  public  estimation,  in  proportion  as  the  novelty  of  the  doctrines 
advocated  might  clash  with  the  individual  preconception  of  the  reader. 
Some  would  consult  the  chronological  dates,  appended  generally  to 
our  version  of  the  Bible  ; and  seeing  it  therein  laid  down,  that  the 
Deluge  took  place  in  the  year  2348,  B.  C.,  they  might,  with  apparent 
reason,  consider  that  my  assertions  were  false  in  basis,  subversive  of 
true  belief,  or  injurious  in  tendency;  were  I not  at  the  very  outset  of 
my  discourse  to  show  to  them,  that  the  chronology  of  Scripture  is 
not  a matter  of  indisputable  accuracy,  and  particularly  that  the  dates 
appended  to  our  Bible,  which  are  founded  on  the  authority  of  Arch- 
bishop Usher,  do  not  demand  our  implicit  credence. 

There  is  nothing  in  my  essays  or  lectures  which  militates  with  the 
most  orthodox  views  of  Holy  Writ,  and  there  is  nothing  further  from 
my  purpose  than  to  give  umbrage  to  any  one,  in  free,  but  temperate 
and  deferential  inquiries.  My  observations  will  tend,  on  the  contrary, 
to  confirm  Biblical  authority;  and,  if  at  first  sight  my  still-apprenticed 
method  of  introducing  a subject,  causes  a momentary  apprehension 
that  I am  departing  from  legitimate  views,  I am  desirous  that  the 
results  should  be  found  conclusive  and  satisfactory.  Consequently, 
if  I do  not  take  the  Deluge  at  2348,  B.  C.,  I am  not  differing  from  the 
Bible,  but  simply  from  Archbishop  Usher.  These  are  the  reasons 
which  induce  me  to  preface  Egyptian  History  by  a brief  chronologi- 
cal inquiry. 

When,  some  years  ago,  I amused  my  vacant  hours  by  reading  the 
different  works  that  treated  on  Egyptian  studies,  I remember  being 
struck  with  the  incomprehensible  discrepancy  existing  between  the 
result  of  some  of  the  new  discoveries,  and  those  systems  which  1 had 
been  taught  at  school.  Believing  at  that  time,  that  the  dates  appended 
to  our  Bible  were  certainties  immutable  as  Scripture  itself,  I could 
not  but  feel  apprehensive,  that  the  existence  of  the  pyramids  looming 
like  mountains  in  the  distance  from  my  window-seat,  and  the  anti- 
quity insisted  upon  for  them,  might  affect  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  and 
the  veneration  with  which  I had  been  taught  to  regard  it.  In  the 
end,  I was  driven  to  examine  and  inquire  for  myself ; and  great  was 
my  surprise  to  find,  that  the  date  chosen  by  Usher  for  the  Deluge, 
2348,  B.  C.,  was  only  one  among  some  300  opinions,  all  varying  from 
each  other  in  biblical  chronology;  and  it  was  highly  satisfactory  to 
learn,  that  no  point  of  Christian  faith  or  doctrine  would  be  prejudiced 
whether  the  creation  of  the  world  be  taken  at  B.  C.  558G,  (which  is 
the  Septuagint  computation)  or  at  B.  C.  3616,  which  is  that  of  the 
Rabbi  Lipman,  upon  the  vulgar  Jewish  system.  This  fact  to  me 
being  clear,  I am  desirous  that  those  who  may  not  have  paid  critical 
attention  to  these  subjects,  should  arrive  at  the  same  conclusion.  I 
have  caused  an  abstract  to  be  made  of  the  table  furnished  by  the 
learned  Hales  ; while  for  confirmation  of  what  I am  about  to  state,  I 
refer  to  the  erudite  and  conclusive  work  of  that  excellent  and  pious 
churchman. 

TABLE  OF 

DIVERSITY  OF  CHRONOLOGICAL  COMPUTATIONS. 
CREATION  OF  THE  WORLD. 


Jewish  Computation, 

before  Christ, 

4220 

Idem. 

“ 

ft 

4184 

Chinese  Jews, 

tt 

t' 

4079 

Some  Talmudists, 

a 

3761 

Vulgar  Jewish  computation, 

14 

(< 

3760 

Seder  Olam  Rabba,  great  chronicle  of  the 

world,  A.  D.  130, 

4! 

tt 

3751 

Rabbi  Lipman, 

a 

3616 

CHRISTIAN  DIVINES. 

Clemens  Alexandrinus,  A.  D.  194, 

it 

ft 

5624 

Hales,  Rev.  Dr. 

14 

5411 

Origen, A.D.  230, 

M 

«< 

4830 

Kennedy,  Bedford,  Ferguson, 

ft 

a 

4007 

Usher,  Lloyd,  Calmet, 

« 

ct 

4004 

Helvetius,  Marsham, 

ft 

tt 

4000 

Melancthon, 

if 

a 

3964 

Luther, 

U 

tt 

3961 

Scaliger, 

(4 

tt 

3950 

DELUGE. 

Septuagint  version, 

H 

tt 

3246 

Samaritan  Text, 

(« 

a 

2993 

English  Bible, 

«4 

t. 

2348 

Hebrew  text. 

“ 

H 

2238 

Josephus, 

it 

a 

3146 

Vulgar  Jewish  computation, 

ft 

ft 

2104 

Hales, 

Usher, 

it 

tt 

3155 

tt 

2348 

Calmet, 

« 

tt 

2344 

EXODUS. 

Josephus,  and  Hales, 

Usher,  and  English  Bible, 

ft 

ft 

1648 

« 

a 

1491 

Calmet, 

it 

a 

1487 

Vulgar  Jewish  chronology, 

it 

ft 

1312 

i. 


BIBLICAL  TEXTS  AND  VERSIONS. 

Years. 

Septuagint  computation, 

before  Christ, 

5586 

Septuagint  Alexandrinus, 

ft 

it 

5508 

Septuagint  Vatican, 

tt 

tt 

5270 

Samaritan  computation, 

tt 

tt 

4427 

Samaritan  Text, 

it 

(( 

4305 

Hebrew  Text, 

tt 

tt 

4161 

English  Bible, 

it 

it 

4004 

JEWISH  COMPUTATIONS. 

"I  Playfair, 

tt 

it 

5555 

Josephs,  i JatSs°n> 

tt 

tt 

ft 

ft 

5481 

5402 

j Universal  History 

(( 

tt 

4698 

Talmudists, 

(( 

ft 

5344 

Seder  Olam  Sutha, 

it 

ft 

4359 

Joining  with  the  Rev.  Doctor  in  his  lament  on  the  variety,  dis- 
cordance and  imperfection  of  chronological  systems,  I must  not 
omit  observing  that  the  above  is  but  an  abstract  of  120  different 
opinions  on  the  epoch  of  the  Creation,  dating  backward  from  the 
birth  of  Christ,  to  be  found  in  his  first  volume,  page  212.  This  list 
might  be  swelled  to 300  distinct  opinions  on  the  same  era.  Between 
the  highest  epoch,  B.  C.  6984  years,  (the  Alphonsine  tables,)  and  the 
lowest,  B.  C.  3616,  (Rabbi  Lipman,)  there  is  a difference  of  3268 
years  ! 

For  the  epoch  of  the  Deluge,  he  cites  16  opinions — Maximum 
B.  C.  3246 — minimum  B.  C.  2104 — difference  years,  1142. 

Out  of  15  authorities  quoted  for  the  epoch  of  the  Exodus  of  the 
Israelites  from  Egypt,  the  highest  in  chronological  length  makes  it 
B.  C.  1648 — the  lowest  B.  C.  1312 — difference  336  years. 

Thus,  for  the  three  most  important  events  recorded  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament, i.  e.  the  Creation,  the  Deluge  and  the  Exodus,  the  inquirer 
after  truth  is  lost  in  a chaos  of  300  different,  published  human  opin- 
ions on  the  eras  of  the  same  events;  opinions  conflicting  with  each 
other  ! But  so  uncertain  is  biblical  chronology,  that  among  36  Chris- 
tian authorities,  who  have  computed  the  epoch  of  the  nativity  of  our 
Saviour,  the  year  itself  is  a disputed  point,  and  cannot  be  defined 
within  10  years ; so  that,  while  all  our  present  dates  are  dependent 
upon  the  birth  of  Christ  for  accuracy,  we  cannot  say  positively,  whe- 
ther this  year,  which  we  term  1842,  be  1837  or  1847.  If  the  year 
be  liable  to  doubt,  how  much  more  so  must  the  day  of  the  nativity? 
Our  present  Christmas  day  was  not  determined  till  the  year  325  after 
our  Saviour’s  birth,  and  then  erroneously.  Hales  quotes  Scaliger  to 
the  effect,  that  “ to  determine  the  day  of  Christ’s  birth  belongs  to 
God  alone,  not  to  man.”  All  that  can  be  positively  averred  is,  that 
Christ  was  born  about  Autumn  ; and  most  probably  between  749  and 
750  years  after  the  building  of  Rome.  Yet  we  are  not  much  bene- 
fitted  by  this  definition  ; for,  34  chronologists  assign  six  dates  for  the 
building  of  the  Imperial  city — maximum  B.  C.  753,  minimum  B.  C. 
627 — giving  a difference  of  126  years  for  an  event,  which  is  here 
dependent  on  the  implied  accuracy  of  a date,  that  cannot  itself  be 
determined  within  10  years. 

The  date  of  the  Jewish  Exodus  has  to  be  computed  backward 
from  the  building  of  Solomon’s  temple.  If  this  were  certain,  many 
difficulties  would  be  removed ; but,  out  of  19  dates  for  Solomon’s 
temple,  the  longest  is  B.  C.  741,  the  shortest  B.  C.  479  ; so  that  we 
cannot  arrive  at  the  truth  within  262  years.  In  consequence  of 
which  enormous  discrepancy,  we  cannot  define  the  precise  epoch  of 
Moses ; nor  determine  in  Egyptian  history  under  what  particular 
Pharaoh  the  Israelites  entered  the  wilderness  ; although,  within  this 
space  of  262  years,  we  know  every  Pharaoh  who  sat  on  the  throne 
of  Egypt.  Could  we  find,  in  hieroglyphics,  a record  of  the  Jews,  ws 
should  be  able  to  determine  this  point ; but,  although  every  known 
legend  is  at  this  day  translated,  no  light  has  yet  been  gained  on  this 
point,  notwithstanding  the  most  rigid  examination.  I shall  take  up 
this  question  in  its  proper  place. 

The  same  discrepancies  are  infinitely  more  conspicuous  in  profane 
chronology.  The  epoch  of  Sesostris,  the  greatest  king  of  Egypt, 
was  a dilemma  in  history.  We  had  eight  probable  computations, 
B.  C.  1555  to  B.  C.  967,  differing  588  years ; but  the  recent  discoy 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


U 


erics  in  hieroglyphics  have  enabled  us  to  define  his  epoch  within  a 
hundred  years  with  certainty;  and,  probably,  within  ten:  of  which, 
in  due  course. 

Siege  of  Troy : 2G  dates — B.  C.  1270  to  B.  C.  964 — differing 
306  years;  besides  some  doubts,  arising  in  part  from  other  circum- 
stances, and  in  part  from  hieroglyphical  facts,  as  to  the  occurrence 
of  the  etent,  or,  at  any  rate,  as  to  its  historical  importance. 

Nor  for  the  overthrow  of  the  mighty  Nineveh,  can  we  extricate  our- 
selves from  the  confusion  proceeding  from  17  computations — B.  C. 
B9G,  and  B.  C.  59G — a difference  of  300  years. 

Finding  it  impossible  to  adjust,  on  any  former  systems  of  chrono- 
logy, the  leading  dates  of  sacred  and  profane  history,  the  Rev.  Ur. 
11  ales  undertook  the  herculean  labor  of  erecting  a chronological  edi- 
fice, built  upon  more  solid  and  more  liberal  ground.  He  investigated 
the  evidences  for  and  against  the  longer  and  shorter  computations 
of  the  patriarchal  generations  from  Adam  to  Abraham,  founded  on 
the  Masorete  Hebrew  text,  the  Samaritan,  the  Septuagint,  and  on 
the  Jewish  chronicler  Josephus ; and  the  result  was,  a conviction  of 
the  untenableness  of  the  shortest  or  Hebrew  computation. 

He  discovered,  that  this  discrepancy  between  the  older  translation 
of  the  Bible — the  Greek,  made  about  B.  C.  250 — and  the  Hebrew 
copy  of  the  Old  Testament,  proceeded  from  a manifest  corruption  of 
the  text,  by  the  Jews  themselves,  about  the  time  of  the  Seder  Olam 
Rabba,  their  great  system  of  chronology  in  A.  D.  130.  The  Hebrew 
.biule  was  corrupted  by  the  Jews,  to  throw  the  early  prophecies  con- 
cerning the  Messiah  out  of  date.  Yet  it  is  the  computation  followed 
by  Archbishop  Usher,  and  has  been  attached  to  the  English  copy  of 
the  Scriptures  by  Act  of  Parliament.  However,  “ Usher’s  date,  at- 
tached to  our  English  Bible,  has  been  relinquished  by  the  ablest 
chronologists  of  the  present  time,  from  its  irreconcileableness  with 
the  rise  of  the  primitive  empires ; the  Assyrian,  Egyptian,  Indian 
and  Chinese,  all  suggesting  earlier  dates  for  the  Deluge.”  And  now 
that  we  can  bring  Egyptian  positive  annals,  derived  from  writings  on 
existing  monuments,  the  chronology  of  the  Hebrew  version  of  the 
Bible  is,  in  the  opinion  of  the  learned,  altogether  exploded. 

All  these  subjects  have  formed  my  studies,  but  1 limit  myself  at 
present  to  generalities.  I now  proceed  with  my  own  special  depart- 
ment of  history,  requesting  the  reader  to  keep  in  view  the  chronolo- 
gical tabie  just  cited,  as  an  evidence  that  the  impartial  inquirer  after 
truth  cannot  justly  be  blamed  for  errors  on  subjects  wherein  the  texts 
of  Scripture  and  the  opinions  of  the  learned  theologists  and  pious 
Christian  divines  so  widely  differ. 


Till  within  the  last  few  years,  when,  through  the  labors  of  the 
Hieroglyphists,  we  have  been  enabled  to  obtain  not  only  faithful  and 
authentic  copies  of  most  of  Egypt’s  no  longer  mysterious  legends, 
but  translations  of  their  import,  we  were  left  entirely  dependent  upon 
an  incidental  mention  of  Egypt  in  the  Scriptures,  or  thrown  upon 
facts,  meagre  in  themselves,  or  dubious  from  their  ambiguity,  handed 
down  to  us  by  profane  authors. 

The  ignorance,  as  concerns  Egypt,  of  the  Greek  and  Roman  wri- 
ters, was  exceeded  only  by  their  love  of  the  marvellous,  or  their  often 
wilful  disregard  of  truth. 

Floundering  in  doubts  and  among  uncertainties,  we  had  frequent 
assurance  of  their  fallacies  or  misrepresentations,  without,  however, 
possessing  any  criterion  by  which  to  test  their  accuracy,  or  to  dis- 
prove their  assertions ; and,  in  our  speculations  into  the  early  pro- 
gress of  mankind,  so  wrapped  in  fables  or  shadowed  with  absurdity, 
were  the  pale  rays  of  light  discernible,  that  we  were  then  reluctantly 
inclined  to  subscribe  to  the  doctrine — “ There  is  no  evidence,  but 
traditionary,  of  any  fact  whatever  (the  author  probably  means  date) 
of  profane  history  anterior  to  600  years  before  the  Christian  era.” 

On  no  country  have  so  many  pens  been  employed,  as  on  Egypt. 
All  mankind  agreed,  from  the  most  ancient  to  the  latest  times,  that 
no  nation’s  history  equalled  in  importance  the  Egyptian.  And  yet, 
so  faint  and  partial  was  the  amount  of  information  to  be  collected 
from  the  records  of  ancient  writers,  and  (until  the  promulgation  of  re- 
cent discoveries,  since  Champollion  illumined  the  circumambient 
darkness)  so  unsatisfactory  seemed  the  instruction  derivable  from  at. 
tempts  to  lift  the  “ veil  of  Isis  ;”  that  Egypt  was  still  a land  of  enig- 
mas, of  impenetrable  mysteries,  where  the  lamp  of  inquiry  shed  no 
light  to  rescue  her  annals  from  accumu!ated  gloom. 

My  bibliographical  sketch  has  shown,  that  on  modem  writers,  with 
exceptions  comparatively  few,  when  we  consider  the  ponderous  tomes 
that  fill  the  libraries  of  every  nation  of  present  times,  we  can  pass 
but  little  encomium.  Often  servile  copyists  of  errors  perpetuated  by 
time  and  repetition,  without  being  thereby  divested  of  erroneousness, 
we  might  apply  to  many  of  those  learned  investigators,  who  thought 
their  labors  had  enlightened  us,  the  verse  that  was  once  made  upon 
the  charge  of  a celebrated  judge  to  a jury  in  England  : 

“ Chief  Justice  Parker, 

He  made  that  darker. 

Which  was  dark  enough  before !” 

The  most  authentic  annals  of  Egyptian  history,  and  the  only  cer- 
tain accounts  w'e  had  of  early  Egyptian  manners  and  customs,  in- 
stitutions and  systems,  were  derived  from  the  Old  Testament.  But, 
excepting  the  period  of  the  Exodus  and  the  previous  visit  of  Abraham, 
with  the  interesting  events  transpiring  during  the  interval,  we  cannot, 
in  the  Bible,  expect  to  gather  more  than  incidental  and  transitory  refer- 


ences to  subjects,  on  which  we  seek  for  information;  because  the 
Pentateuch  is  a history  of  the  early  Hebrews,  and  touches  on  the 
Gentile  nations,  with  whom  they  were  brought  into  contact,  only 
incidentally. 

The  events  dwelt  upon  by  the  Israelitish  historian,  may  have  been 
sometimes  exceedingly  important  to  the  interests  and  welfare  of  the 
Jews,  without  always  thereby  requiring  that  they  should  be  of  equal 
consequence  to  the  Egyptians.  Nor  must  prejudice,  or  preconceived 
opinion  continue  to  be  flattered  by  deception,  as  to  the  relations  be- 
tween the  early  Hebrews  and  a mighty  and  powerful  monarchy  like 
that  of  Egypt — whose  conquests,  prior  to  the  Exodus  as  well  as  for 
many  centuries  subsequently  to  that  period,  had  extended  into  Africa, 
further  than  a xchite  man  can  penetrate  at  the  present  day  ; whose 
garrisons  held  Palestine,  Syria,  Arabia,  Assyria,  Mesopotamia,  Asia 
Minor  and  other  remote  Asiatic  nations  in  tribute,  or  in  bondage  ; 
and  whose  powerful  sway  had  already  been  felt  in  Lybia  and  Barbary. 

From  the  Old  Testament,  as  from  Profane  History,  wc  could  de- 
rive only  a limited  or  partial  view  of  the  true  greatness  of  the  Pha- 
raohs ; and  we  had  heard  nothing  from  the  Egyptians  themselves,  on 
events  to  them  so  momentous. 

But  when,  through  the  inestimable  discoveries  of  hieroglyphical 
science  we  can  read,  translate,  and  understand  the  legends  still 
sculptured,  or  delineated  on  Egypt’s  vast  monuments,  and  decipher 
the  written  pages  of  her  crumbling  papyri,  we  are  enabled  to  bring 
forward  her  history,  a speaking  and  irrefragable  witness  of  her  glory. 

It  is  to  vindicate  the  early  fame  of  the  Egyptians — to  attest  their 
wisdom,  their  power,  and  their  boundless  superiority  to  any  of  their 
contemporaries,  that  I venture  now  to  present  a brief,  but,  I believe, 
an  approximatively-correct  summary  of  Egyptian  resuscitated  annals. 

The  records  of  Egypt,  such  as  time  and  barbarism  have  spared,  are 
of  more  positive  antiquity,  and  of  more  positive  authenticity,  than 
any  uninspired  histories  with  which  we  are  acquainted  ; because, 
they  were  chiselled,  painted,  or  written,  at  the  time  of  the  events  to 
them  contemporaneous.  We  can  row  behold,  and,  if  we  choose  to 
study  we  can  read  for  ourselves,  those  pages  of  history,  that  to  the 
Greeks  and  Romans  were  dead-letters  and  incomprehensible  mys- 
teries. ■ 

Apart  from  the  lamentably  imperfect  state,in  which  the  monu- 
mental legends  of  Egypt  have  come  down  to  us  (mutilated  by  man, 
rather  than  Time,)  the  only  doubts  remaining  in  the  minds  of  the 
hieroglyphical  students,  proceed  rather  from  incidental  vacuums  in 
their  own  translation.  Hence,  errors  have  been  frequently,  and  for 
some  time  will  be  committed ; but,  as  I shall  explain,  these,  from 
their  very  nature,  are  of  comparatively  trifling  moment. 

Already  are  we  possessed  of  sufficient  knowledge  to  ascertain  with 
exactitude  (so  far  as  the  translation  is  concerned,)  the  more  important 
facts,  or  meaning  of  hieroglyphical  legends;  and  already  may  the  hiero- 
glyphical student,  like  Alexander  when  the  Indian  Ocean  presented  an 
insurmountable  barrier  to  his  dreams  of  conquest,  weep  at  the  approach- 
ing want  of  materials,  whereon  to  prosecute  his  researches.  It  is  a 
sad,  but  too-excruciatingly  accurate  conviction  in  the  minds  of  Cham- 
pollion’s  disciples,  that,  had  all  the  hieroglyphic  legends  of  ancient 
Egypt  been  proserved  to  us,  we  should  now  possess  a complete,  un- 
broken and  authentic  series  of  annals  back  to  the  remotest  periods  of 
conceivable  post-diluvian  time ; when  the  ancestors  of  the  Hebrews 
were  mere  nomads  in  Aramanea  ; when  the  Pelasgians  were  yet 
unborn  ; the  Greeks,  the  Persians,  and  perhaps  the  Phoenicians,  had 
not  been  dreamc-d  of;  more  than  15  centuries  before  Troy  fell,  and 
much  “ more  than  1300  years  before  Solomon”  founded  the  Temple 
of  Jerusalem,  till  we  should  approach  the  early  hour,  when  mankind 
dwelt  together  on  the  plains  of  Shinar. 

Even  with  the  paucity  of  unimpaired  records  which  have  come 
down  to  us,  it  is  not  too  much  to  assert,  that,  at  the  present  moment, 
Egyptian  archamlogists  possess  more  positive  knowledge  of  events 
and  data,  ages  antecedent  to  Moses,  than  we  can  glean  upon  some 
most  important  questions,  from  histories  of  England,  about  circum- 
stances precedent  to  Alfred  the  Great  or  of  France  before  Charle- 
magne ! 

With  such  astounding  results,  achieved,  as  I explained  in  my  first 
chapter,  through  the  Rosetta  Stone  ; a mutilated  but  invaluable 
triglyphic  and  bilinguar  fragment  in  the  British  Museum ; when  we 
recognize  the  thrilling  interest  that  now  invests  the  monuments  of 
Egypt,  and  the  enthusiastic  ardor  of  Chantpollion’s  disciples,  “ our 
indignation  must  then  be  cast  on  those  barbarian  efforts,  which  convert 
the  Monuments  of  Egypt,  those  sacred  records  of  art  and  of  anti- 
quity, into  quarries,  and  destroy  what  they  cannot  equal.  Day  after 
day,  plunder  and  mutilation  are  rooting  up  all  that  remains — another 
century,  and  what  Egypt  was  will  be  a tale — wo  to  Egypt ! The 
“impure  foreigner”  (the  descendant  of  the  Scythian — the  race  termed 
on  the  monuments,  the  sore  of  Sheto,)  whom  she  bound  to  her  char- 
iots—trod  beneath  her  sandals — and  forced  to  excavate  the  temples 
of  her  gods — recklessly  mocks  and  defaces  the  palaces  of  her  kings 
and  the  tombs  of  her  dead  1” 

The  monuments  of  Egypt,  whereon  are  chiselled  the  glowing 
chapters  of  her  history,  presenting  to  us  the  records  of  events  coeval 
with  their  erection,  are,  apart  from  the  reverence  due  to  inspiration, 
and  the  undoubted  collateral  testimony  that  demands  our  belief  in 
Holy  Writ,  of  interest  next  to  the  Bible  in  importance  ; while,  in 
authenticity  of  record  (due  allowance  made  for  possible  exaggera 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


35 


lion  and  a national  vanity,  with  the  evils  of  which  eve  r history,  of 
every  age  on  earth,  is  more  or  less  pervaded,)  these  legends  are  as 
satisfactory  as  the  Old  Testament  itself:  because,  the  Pentateuch, 
though  preserved  by  the  hand  of  Providence,  has  not  reached  us  in 
one  single  original  copy,  written  at  the  time  of  the  events’  occur, 
rence  ; and  the  text  we  make  use  of  is  acknowledged  to  be  the  result 
of  varied  and  laborious  comparisons,  made  and  collated  by  learned 
divines  of  all  nations  and  ages,  from  the  most  perfect  editions  ob- 
tainable at  the  several  periods  of  their  respective  examinations,  of 
the  Masorete  Hebrew,  the  Greek,  Samaritan  and  other  versions. 
The  union  in  council  of  the  highest  Christian  prelates,  since  the  days 
of  Constantine,  has  been  at  divers  intervals  required,  to  place  tbe 
seal  of  confirmatory  authenticity  upon  the  originals,  of  which  we 
possess  only  copies  or  translations.  And  that  these  last  are  not  free 
from  interpolations,  misconstruction,  or  doubts,  proceeding  from  am- 
biguities, or  differences  in  their  several  originals,  or  trom  the  errors 
and  opinions  of  translators  and  commentators,  cannot  be  denied.  In 
fact,  “sacred  classics  are  no  more  exempt  from  various  readings  than 
profane.”  The  differences,  on  comparing  the  masorete  and  Sama- 
ritan Hebrew  texts,  with  that  of  the  Septuagint,  and  the  annals  of 
Josephus,  amount,  in  the  generations  of  the  antediluvian  patriarchs 
to  600  years,  and  in  the  postdiluvian  to  700 : that  is,  to  a discrepancy 
of  1300  years,  solely  between  the  era  of  the  creation  and  the  life 
of  Abraham!  These  differences,  moreover,  have  not  arisen  from 
accident,  but  from  premeditated  design — and  it  is  a superstition  to 
suppose,  that  the  Almighty  is  continuing  a miracle,  to  prevent  inter- 
polations or  misconstruction  in  books,  which,  however  sacred,  are 
subject  to  the  same  casualties  as  others.  These  assertions  are  very 
easily  supported  ; and,  in  chronology,  this  is  no  mischievous  innova- 
tion ; for  I can  produce  the  whole  fabric  of  Church  History  in  proof 
of  the  disagreement,  among  those  most  qualified  to  judge,  Christian 

divines  of  all  ages,  from  Clement of  Alexandria,  A.  D.  194, 

down  to  Dr.  Hales  ; nor  am  I,  in  chronology,  inclined  to  cry  out  with 
the  Jew,  “we  wi  1 not  recede  from  the  usage  of  our  forefathers.” 

The  legends  of  Egypt  are  exposed  to  the  same  errors  of  transla- 
tion ; and,  in  their  present  mutilated  condition,  are  moro  liable  to 
the  same  misinterpretations  than  are  the  Scriptures ; but,  with  this 
difference,  that  we  are  enabled  to  verify  the  Egyptian  records  in 
the  original  for  ourselves,  supposing  we  choose  to  consult  them  in  the 
valley  of  the  Nile,  or  in  European  collections,  and  that  we  acquire 
the  necessary  qualifications  to  forming  a valid  opinion. 

It  is  exceedingly  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  reconcile  the  mon- 
umental evidences  of  remote  antiquity  in  Egypt — the  pyramids  for 
instance — with  the  chronology  of  Archbishop  Usher — which  is  the 
one,  generally  received  in  Protestant  communities — and  is  based 
upon  the  Masorete  Hebrew  version  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  all 
attempts  (and  their  name  is  Legion)  to  confine  the  chronology  of 
Egypt  to  this  unnecessary  and  spurious  limit,  must  end  in  failure. 

The  Hebrew  Oed  Testament — termed  the  Masorete  Text  from 
“ Masora,”  tradition — or,  in  common  parlance,  the  Hcbrcio  verity — 
was  verified  by  the  Hebrew  rabbis,  at  some  period  between  840  and 
1030  after  Christ.  This  copy  is,  by  great  theologians,  maintained, 
not  to  be  an  exact  transcript  of  the  same  original  Law,  from  which  the 
Septuagint  was  translated,  B.  C.  240.  It  is  indisputable,  that  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  from  which  our  translation  of  the  Bible  was  made ; 
and,  on  the  authority  of  which,  Usher  fixed  the  deluge  at  2348  B.C. 
were  altered  curtailed,  interpolated  and  mutilated  by  the  Jews  them- 
selves, about  the  beginning  of  the  2nd  century  after  Christ:  because, 
they  then  found  “ their  own  Scriptures”  turned,  by  the  Christians,  into 
arms  against  themselves;  and  were  confounded  by  the  proofs,  drawn 
from  their  own  archives,  that  the  Saviour’s  advent  at  the  exact  time 
he  appeared,  was  prophesied  from  patriarchal  times  in  the  ancient 
Hebrew  text.  The  Rabbins  cursed  the  day  of  the  Septuagint  trans- 
lation, and  compared  it  to  that  “ unhappy  day  for  Israel,”  when  the 
“ Golden  Calf  was  made.”  That  triple-apostate,  Aquila , was  prob- 
ably the  instrument  of  the  atrocious  corruption  of  the  sacred  records, 
about  A.  C.  128.  This  controversy  is  to  be  found  in  all  the  Fathers  ; 
and  by  all,  save  by  Origen  and  Jerome,  who  acted  under  Judaic  influ- 
ence, the  interpolations  were  denounced.  The  computation  of  the 
Hebrew  text,  therefore,  was  rejected  by  the  early  Christians  at  its 
outset— revived,  in  the  middle  ages,  by  some  Roman  Catholic  author- 
ities-— adopted  by  Usher,  and  affixed  to  our  Bible  by  act  of  Parlia. 
ment — analyzed  and  overthrown  by  Hales  and  other  orthodox  Pro- 
testant churchmen,  and  now  placed  beyond  further  question,  by  the 
unanswerable  evidence  of  Egyptian  hieroglyphical  annals. 


Note  I.  To  show  the  incongruity  of  the  Hebrew  computation  in  early 
patriarchal  genealogies,  I extract  two  out  of  the  many  remarkable  dilemmas, 
in  which  the  supporters  of  that  chronology,  such  as  Usher,  are  placed. 

. ANTEDILUVIAN  GENEALOGIES. 

In  Genesis,  we  are  told  that  Methuselah  lived  969  years,  that  he  was  187 
years  old  when  he  begat  Lamech,  and  that  Lamech  at  the  age  of  182  years 
begat  Noah,  lherefore  if  we  sum  up  together  the  age  of  Lamech,  when  he 

begat  Noah,  . years  182 

and  the  age  of  Methuselah  when  he  begat  Lamech,  , , . .187 


find  that  Methuselah  was  369  years  old  when  Noah  was  born. 

Now,  as  Methuselah  lived  969  years,  ......  969 

if  we  deduct  his  age  at  the  period  of  Noah’s  birth,  *.  *.  *.  369 

years  600 


it  follows  that  Methuselah  lived  600  years  after  this  event.  We  are  also 
told  that  Noah  entered  the  ark  at  the  six  hundredth  year  of  his  age. 

44  It  follows  then,  that  when  Noah  entered  the  ark,  Methuselah  was  still 
alive  ; and  as  there  is  no  mention  of  his  having  accompanied  his  grandson  into 
the  ark,  Methuselah  must  have  been  drowned  in  the  universal  Hood.” 

Let  the  defenders  of  the  chronology  of  the  Hebrew  text  explain  this  cir- 
cumstance as  well  as  they  can,  and  reconcile  it  with  the  account  which 
Moses  thus  gives  in  Genesis — Meihuselah  is  thus  drowned  by  act  of  Par- 
liament ! I am  aware  that  this  dilemma  is  supposed  to  be  avoided  by  his 
conjectural  decease  in  the  last  year  before  the  Hood. 

POSTDILUVIAN  GENEALOGIES. 

If  we  are  wedded  to  the  Hebrew  computation,  44  we  must  admit,  that  Abra- 
ham, the  Father  of  the  Faithful,  who  is  described  as  dying,”  44  in  a good  old 
age,  and  an  old  man  full  of  years,”  expired  thirty-five  years  before  Shem, 
who  was  born  nearly  a hundred  years  before  the  deluge,  arid  nine  generations 
before  the  son  of  Terah. 

We  must  believe  Abraham  contemporary  with  Noah  for  more  than  half  a 
century,  and  with  Shem  during  his  whole  life. 

We  must  believe,  that  Isaac  was  born  only  forty-two  years  after  the  death 
of  Noah,  and  that  he  was  contemporary  with  Shem  for  the  period  of  1 10  years  ; 
and,  as  not  the  slightest  mention  is  made  of  any  intercourse  between  Abra- 
ham and  those  venerable  patriarchs  who  survived  the  deluge  (Noah,  Shem 
and  others,  who  were  miraculously  preserved  as  the  second  progenitors  of 
the  human  race,)  we  are  forced  to  conclude  that  Abraham,  the  great  refor- 
mer of  religion,  wandered  about  from  country  to  country,  “either  ianoranl  of 
their  existence,  or  regardless  of  their  authority  while,  as  Mizraim,  the  sou 
of  Ham,  had  not  necessarily,  or  scripturally,  departed  from  the  pure  prime- 
val religion  of  his  father  and  grand  ather,  and  as  he  colonized  Egypt,  per- 
haps sixty  (if  not  more)  years  before  the  confusion  of  Babel,  (on  the  primitive 
distribution  of  man  in  the  days  of  Peleg)  we  must  concede  that  the  primitive 
Egyptians, children  of  Mizraim,  were  worshipping  the  pure  God  in  Egypt, 
while  Abraham’s  father,  Terah,  deified  the  log  he  had  hewn  into  a Pagan 
idol  ! 

When,  however,  by  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  we  place  the  birth  of 
Abraham  at  1070  years  after  the  Hood,  we  are  saved  from  these  incongrui- 
ties; and  have  a longer  time  for  intervening  Egyptian  history,  between  the 
deluge  and  the  visit  of  Abraham. 

The  following  legend  of  the  Hebrews,  which  I extract  from  the  44  New 
World”  of  1 1th  of  March,  1843,  will  show  that  Torah’s  idolatry  is  recognized 
at  the  present  day  by  his  descendants.  It  is  tbe  translation  of  a paragraph, 
in  a work  just  published  at  Paris,  forihe  use  of  the  lsraelitish  youth,  entitled 
44  Les  Matinees  du  Sainedi,”  by  G.  Ben.  Levi.  The  tradition  is  current 
among  the  Cairo  Jews  to  this  day. 

Abraham  and  the  Idols. — At  the  period,  when  the  first  of  onr  holy  pa- 
triarchs lived,  worship  was  offered  to  the  images  of  men,  of  animals,  of 
plants,  and  fantastical  beings,  carved  of  wood,  sculptured  of  stone,  or  cast  in 
metal,  to  which  divine  power  was  ascribed  by  ignorance  and  superstition. 

Terah,  the  father  of  Abraham,  was  himself  a maker  of  Idols,  and  never- 
theless adored  them,  which  was  repugnant  to  the  good  sense  of  his  son.  One 
day,  when  Abraham  was  at  home  alone,  an  old  man  presented  himself  in  the 
idol-warehouse  of  Terah,  to  buy  one  of  them.  44  How  old  are  you  ?”  asked 
Abraham,  of  the  old  man.  44  Eighty  years.”  “Plow!  what  '•  you,  who  are 
so  old,  do  you  wish  to  worship  an  image  that  my  father's  workmen  made 
yesterday  ?”  The  old  inan  understood  him,  and  retired  ashamed. 

A young  woman  succeeded  him.  She  came  to  bring  a dish  of  victuals  as 
an  offering  to  the  idols  of  Terah.  44  They  do  not  eat  alone,  (said  Abraham 
to  her,)  try  to  make  them  take  this  food  from  your  hands,”  and  the  young 
woman,  having  made  the  attempt  without  success,  went  away  undeceived. 

Then  Abraham  broke  all  his  father’s  idols,  except  one  only,  the  largest, 
in  whose  hands  he  placed  a hammer.  When  Terah,  on  returning,  saw  this 
havoc,  he  Hew  into  a violent  rage  ; but  his  son  said  to  him,  44  It  is  ihe  large 
idol  that  has  done  this;  a good  woman  having  come  to  bring  your  divinities 
something  to  eat,  they  fell  greedily  upon  this  offering,  without  asking  leave 
of  the  largest  and  oldest  of  them.  He  was  angiy,  and  has  avenged  himself 
by  treating  them  in  this  manner.” 

44  You  wish  to  deceive  your  father,”  replied  Terah,  full  of  wrath  ; 44  do  you 
not  know  that  these  images  can  neither  speak  nor  eat,  nor  move  in  the  least  V* 

44  If  it  be  so,”  cried  Abraham,  44  why  do  you  consider  them  as  gods,  and 
why  do  you  compel  me  to  worship  them  ?” 

Note  2. — To  show  the  carelessness,  with  which  some  chronologies  are 
appended  to  our  English  Bible,  1 will  refer  to  44  Alexander’s  Stereotype  Edi- 
tion” of  the  Old  and  New  Testament.  Philadelphia,  1839.  See  Index  of 
that  Bible,  at  the  end,  page  8. 

44  Jn  the  beginning  of  the  reign  of  A rtaxerxes  (called  in  profane  history 
Cambyses)  the  Samaritans,”  &c.  &rc. 

This  confusion  of  personages  well  known  in  history,  is  inexcusable.  Cam- 
byses reigned  8 years,  beginning  B.  C.  530.  In  the  “Shah  Nameh,”  he  is 
probably  “Lohrasp,”  his  name  in  hieroglyphics,  is  “Lambeth,”  and  we  have 
hieroglyphical  tablets  of  the  Gth  year  of  his  reign.  After  the  Magians,  who 

ruled  7 months,  Darius  Hytaspes,  succeeded  him  r and  reigned  36 

years,  of  which  we  have  dates  of  the  36th.  This  name,  in  hieroglyphics, is 
44  Ntariush  as  likewise  in  the  cuneiform  character  ; in  the  Shah  Narn-eh,  he 
is  Gustasp,  or  Gushtap.  Then  followed  Xerxes,  son  of  Darius;  in  the  arrow- 
headed  (ancient  Persian)  form,  thus  written  : 


>/•»!?> 


a ch  r a e 

“ IChchearcha,” 

in  Hierogyphics, 


ch  Kh 


He  reigned  21  years — we  possess  a date,  12th  year  of  his  reign  in  Egypt. 
In  Persian  tradition,  “Isfendiar.”  Then  tame  Axtaxerxes  Longimanus  ■ 
in  hieroglyphics,  “ Artaksheersh  in  Persian,  “ Ardisheei  Dirasdost;”  he 
reigned  40  years.  We  have  hieroglyphical  dales  of  16th  ol  his  reign. 

Thus,  then,  instead  of  the  nonsense,  that  Cambyses  and  Artaxerxes  are 
one  and  the  same  personage  (!)  they  are  separated  by  a period  of  .vnarchy, 
and  two  intervening  reigns  ; and,  from  the  beginning  of  the  rule  of  tko  former 


36 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


In  the  end  of  the  reign  of  the  latter,  the  hierologisls  account  100  years  and 

7 months. 

I quote  this  merely  as  a proof  of  the  advantage  that  chronologists  may  de- 
rive from  Egyptian  history  and  hieroglyphical  studies. 


The  Samaritan  Pentateuch — is  also  a corrupt  text,  in  regard  to 
the  antediluvian  generations  ; nnd  its  first  mutilations  may  have  ex. 
isted  before  A.  D.  230  : but,  after  that,  it  was  subjected  to  greater  cor. 
ruption,  for  then,  the  post-diluvian  generations  were  curtailed.  It 
was  undoubtedly,  at  first,  an  exact  transcript  of  the  original  law — 
a copy  of  the  archives  having  been  furnished  by  the  Jews  to  the  Sa- 
maritans, shortly  before  the  fall  of  Jerusalem,  in  A.  D.  70,  when  it 
would  necessarily  have  agreed  with  the  Septuagint.  Its  manifest 
anachronisms  were  introduced  subsequently,  from  the  same  motives 
which  prompted  the  Rabbies  to  alter  the  text  of  that  volume,  which 
was  hypocritically  termed  so  sacred,  that  “ every  letterwas  counted!” 
It  was  counted,  however,  after  the  interpolations  had  been  made. 

The  Septuagint,  or  translation  by  seventy  learned  men,  who, 
in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  B.  C.  240,  rendered  the  He- 
brew Scriptures  (at  the  time  not  mutilated)  into  Greek,  at  the  Isle 
of  Pharos,  Alexandria. 

It  was  recognized  as  orthodox  by  the  Jews,  for  300  years  ; and  all 
its  parts  were  publicly  verified,  and  collated  by  Jews  and  Greeks. 
It  was  a faithful  translation,  of  the  copy  of  the  Law,  sent  by  the 
High  Priest  of  Israel  to  Philadelphus,  at  the  latter’s  solicitation,  in 
return  for  his  liberation  of  100,000  Jews  from  bondage.  This  He- 
brew copy  came  from  Jerusalem  to  Alexandria,  written  on  parch- 
ment, in  ietters  of  gold. 

The  Rabbies  disputed  its  authority,  about  100  years  after  the  birth 
of  Christ.  “ Wherefore,”  we  may  say  with  Syncellus,  “ it  is  with 
reason,  that,  in  our  chronology,  we  follow  the  version  of  the  Septua- 
gint, which  was  made,  as  it  appears,  from,  an  ancient  and  uncor- 
rupted Hebrew  copy.”  The  Septuagint  is  not  free  from  interpolation 
being  subject  to  the  same  casualties  to  which  all  books  are  liable  ; 
nnd  the  most  remarkable  is  that  of  the  second  Cainan,  between  Ar- 
phaxad  and  Salah,  of  130  years.  This  spurious  personage  was  in- 
troduced into  the  Septuagint,  about  the  time  of  Demetrius,  220,  B. 
C.,  or  about  20  years  after  the  first  publication  of  the  pure  uncor- 
rupted Greek  translation  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Next  in  authority  to  the  Septuagint,  on  chronological  points,  ranks 
the  Jewish  chronologist,  Josephus  ; and  the  one  confirms  the  other. 

Let  us  rejoice,  therefore,  that  the  Septuagint  version  allows  of 
more  enlarged,  liberal  and  equally  orthodox  constructions,  confirmed 
by  the  authority  of  Josephus,  and  by  the  traditionary  fragments  of 
the  Persians,  Hindoos,  Chinese  and  Phoenicians,  independent  of  the 
absolute  necessity  of  receiving,  in  addition  to  all  these,  the  positive 
confirmations  now  elicited  from  Egyptian  legends. 

The  chronology  of  the  Bible,  being  a human  computation,  is  not 
an  article  of  indispensable  faith  ; for  it  should  be  borne  in  mind,  that 
no  two  persons,  who  have  entered  upon  a chronological  inquiry, 
founded  on  an  examination  of  the  sacred  Scriptures,  agree  in  compu- 
tation, or  (not  unfrequently,)  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  texts  they  con- 
sult ; whence  endless  discrepancies  in  their  conclusions.  The  con- 
sequence of  these  controversies  is  made  apparent,  by  the  Table  refer- 
red to  ; and  we  must  remember,  that,  by  different  chronologists,  of  all 
ages,  religions  and  nations,  and,  among  them,  many  of  the  most  eru- 
dite and  pious  divines,  or  Christian  philosophers  (such  as  Sir  Isaac 
Newton,)  there  have  been  put  forth  some  300  systems  of  chro- 
nology chiefly  founded  on  biblical  records,  all  differing  in  the  dates 
assigned  to  the  Creation,  the  Deluge,  the  Exodus,  and  other  events,  of 
which  the  occurrence  is  indisputable  ; though  the  period  of  the  oc- 
currence of  each  may  perhaps  for  ever  remain  an  open  question. 

If  therefore,  in  arriving  reluctantly  at  the  inference,  that  the  Holy 
Records  themselves  are,  in  chronology,  deficient  in  precision  and 
perspicuity,  we  are  forced  to  select  for  ourselves,  that  view  of  the 
subject  which  best  accords  with  our  peculiar  opinions  : so  long  as 
we  demand  no  extension  that  is  not  sanctioned  by  some  high  bib- 
lical authority,  we  are  not  obnoxious  to  the  charge  of  heresy  (though 
heresy  may  be  obnoxious  to  us,)  because,  it  is  not  with  the  Scrip- 
tures, but  with  the  commentators  on  the  Scriptures  (men  like  our- 
selves, liable  to  err)  that  we  differ. 

So  far  as  the  epoch  of  the  Deluge  is  concerned,  it  is  speculative, 
and  not  achievable  by  any  process  hitherto  attempted,  within  1300 
years.  But,  the  most  critical  examination  establishes  for  the  pyra- 
mids of  Egypt,  and  for  “ Shoopho,”  builder  of  the  largest,  an  an- 
tiquity, totally  incompatible  with  the  short  chronology  of  Usher, 
founded  on  ths  Masorete  Hebrew  text,  and  demands  for  them  the 
more  extended,  and  equally  if  not  more  orthodox  readings  of  the 
Septuagint  version.  These  pyramids  were  built,  and  “ Shoopho” 
ruled,  before  Usher’s  date  of  the  Deluge,  the  year  2348,  B.  C. ; and 
this  fact  once  admitted,  it  is  not  inconsistent  with  the  deference  due 
to  Holy  Writ,  to  seek  for  an  explanation,  and  thereby  to  silence 
scepticism. 

It  is  satisfactory  to  be  able  to  prove,  that  there  is  nothing  required 
by  Egyptian  antiquities,  that  can  affect  the  truth  of  Scripture,  or  that 
is  so  boundless,  as  to  subvert  the  text  of  the  Bible. 

If,  through  the  errors  of  man,  his  misconceptions  and  perversions, 
we  differ  in  opinion  with  an  individual  on  the  period  of  the  Deluge, 
that  difference  will  not  affect  the  fact  of  its  occurrence. 


If  we  show  positively  that  Usher  was  wrong,  as  others  have  don# 

1 by  different  arguments,  when  he  chose  the  Hebrew  text,  instead  of 
older,  purer  and  more  orthodox  versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  our 
difference  is  not  with  Scripture,  but  with  Archbishop  Usher,  on  a 
subject  whereon  his  is  only  one  of  300  opinions,  and  on  which  it  is 
a sacred  right  of  every  human  being  to  have  an  opinion,  and  in  that 
to  be  guided,  after  adequate  examination,  by  his  conscientious 
belief.  When  we  point  out  that  Usher  was  wrong  in  fixing  the  Del- 
uge at  B.  C.  2348  ; that  he  was  in  an  error  in  not  giving  due  weight 
to  the  other  versions  of  the  Scripture,  as  other  equally  pious  divines, 
and  equally  erudite  scholars  have  done,  we  are  entitled  to  entertain, 
and  to  express  our  opinion,  just  as  freely  as  he  was  authorized  to  pub. 
lish  his.  Nor  can  an  act  of  Parliament,  or  of  Congress,  render  one 
opinion  more  reasonable  than  another. 

Our  proving  that  the  Pyramids  were  built  before  Usher’s  era  of  the 
Deluge,  will  establish  nothing  beyond  the  fact  that  he  was  mistaken  , 
nor  can  the  opinion  of  either  of  us  affect  the  true  epoch  of  tbo 
event,  or  the  fact  of  its  occurrence.  It  would  be  ridiculous  to  sup. 
pose  the  pyramids  to  have  actually  been  erected  before  the  Deluge  ; 
and  as  we  find  they  positively  exisited  in  B.  C.  2348,  it  stands  to 
reason,  that  the  Deluge  must  have  occurred  many  centuries  before 
them. 

When,  however,  we  are  compelled  to  overstep,  even  by  one  day, 
the  year  in  which  Usher  fixes  the  era  of  the  Deluge,  we  may  as  well 
go  back  to  any  epoch,  that  we  can  show  to  be  admissible  by  two  of 
the  three  versions  of  the  Old  Testament,  of  which  he  only  adopted 
one  ; and  it  is  a source  of  peculiar  gratification  to  find,  that  the  Del. 
uge,  upon  the  authority  of  Christian  churchmen,  can  be  carried  buck 
to  a date,  that  causes  no  doubt  as  to  the  validity  of  the  uncorrupted 
Mosaic  record  ; and  that  if  it  be  placed  anywhere,  beyond  3000,  B. 
C.  (for  Providence  seems  to  have  designed  that  man  should  not  be 
able  to  discover  the  precise  period  of  the  event,)  there  is  nothing  in 
Egyptian  monumental  history,  that  will  not  corroborate  the  sacred 
word,  though  some  facts  may  trench  on  mere  human  opinions  in  re. 
lation  thereto. 

Taking  the  Deluge  at  any  given  point  within  the  chronology  of 
the  Septuagint — say  B.  C.  3200,  and  “ Menei,”  the  first  Pharoah  of 
Egypt,  about  2700,  we  allow  500  years  for  the  migration  of  man 
into  Egypt  and  his  progress  toward  civilization,  till  he  could  build 
one  pyramid.  In  allowing  500  years  more  for  the  erection  of  all 
those  pyramids  at  Meroe,  in  Ethiopia,  and  in  Egypt,  we  have  sufficient 
time  for  their  possible  construction  ; and  then,  taking  up  the  acces. 
sion  of  the  16th  dynasty  at  about  B.  C.  2272,  we  adopt  Rosellini’s 
chronological  series,  and  have  time  for  all  subsequent  events  in 
Egypt.  This  is  but  approximative  of  the  truth.  My  department  is 
Egyptian  history  ; and,  in  rejecting  Usher’s  chronological  system 
in  toto,  I accept  the  Septuagint  date  for  the  Deluge  only — because, 
for  all  subsequent  epochs,  I consider  myself  free  to  choose  (from 
among  three  hundred  systems  of  chronology)  that  arrangement 
best  adapted  to  Egyptian  monumental,  and  other  records.  I com. 
mit  myself  therefore  only  to  the  Septuagint  date  of  the  Deluge, 
as  the  shortest  limit  allowable  for  Egyptian  history,  independently 
of  all  other  nations  ; while  I reserve  the  right  of  adopting  any  ex- 
tension, that  future  discoveries  may  make  orthodox,  or  indispensable. 
As  it  is,  wc  have  not  a year  to  throw  away — and  if  1000  more 
years  could  be  shown  admissible  by  Scripture,  there  is  nothing  in 
Egypt,  that  would  not  be  found  to  agree  with  the  extension. 

The  Septuagint  era  of  the  Flood  is  equally  necessary  for  the  his- 
tory of  mankind  in  other  countries.  The  events  and  histories  of 
other  nations  demand  an  equal  chronological  extension — all  require, 
that  time  should  be  allowed  for  human  multiplication  and  distribu- 
tion. We  will  not  speculate  on  the  possible  time  required,  if  we 
are  to  trace  the  progress  of  civilization,  from  a hunter  to  a shepherd, 
from  a shepherd  to  an  agriculturalist,  and  a manufacturer,  till  man 
could  build  a pyramid,  such  as  any  of  those  at  Memphis,  or  in- 
scribe in  the  largest  the  name  of  “ Shoopho.”  I have  already  ex- 
pressed my  conviction,  that  the  art  of  writing  is  a divine  revelation, 
in  antediluvian  periods  ; and  I incline  to  the  belief,  that  man  was  not 
turned  upon  the  earth  an  uncivilized  savage,  but  that  his  Creator  en- 
dowed him  with  a certain  intuitive  knowledge  in  arts  and  sciences, 
which  practice  could  improve,  or  negligence  deteriorate.  But  still, 
ages  must  have  elapsed  before  the  conception  of  such  an  enterprise 
as  a pyramid,  could  have  entered  the  human  brain  ; and  both  abund- 
ant population  and  long  practical  experience,  in  an  infinitude  of  arts 
and  sciences,  must  have  been  for  centuries  in  operation,  before 
Shoopho,  who  is  Cheops  and  Suphis,  could  erect  the  largest  of  these 
monuments  in  Egypt — before,  in  Chaldea,  a knowledge  of  astronomy 
could  be  acquired,  to  record  calculations  as  far  back  as  2232  B.  C. — 
before,  in  China,  Yao  could  rectify  the  year  in  B.  C.  2269 — before, 
in  Greece,  JEgialus  could  found  the  city  of  Sicyon,  in  B.  C.  2089 — 
before  Nimrod  could  found  Babylon,  in  B.  C.  2554— or  Ashur’s  sons 
have  settled  at  Nineveh — or  before,  in  Indian  records,  a Sanscrit  his. 
tory  should  evince  high  civilization  2000  years  B.  C. ! I will  say 
nothing,  at  present,  about  the  incongruity  of  these  statistical  calcu. 
lations,  that  would  people  the  world,  like  Dr.  Cumberland,  Bishop 
of  Petersborough,  with  30,000  human  beings,  in  the  140th  year  after 
the  flood  (!)  whereby,  in  the  3rd  century,  there  would  have  beer 
6,666,666,660  married  people  ! We  have  only  to  add  the  moderate 
average  of  2 children  to  each  marriage,  and,  in  the  year  340  aftex 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


37 


the  Deluge,  according  to  this  absurd  doctrine,  the  world  must  have 
contained  twenty  thousand  millions  of  human  beings!  whereas,  after 
more  than  5000  years,  we  only  reckon,  at  the  present  day,  between 
900  and  1000  millions  of  inhabitants  on  the  earth.  Noah  left  the 
ark  with  his  family — in  all  8 individuals — and,  making  every  allow, 
ance,  it  must  have  taken  130  years  to  increase  that  community  to 
about  1000  persons.  How  many  centuries  must  have  passed  away 
ere  the  world  could  have  been  sufficiently  populated  (to  sajrnothing 
of  its  civilization)  to  bring  about  any  of  the  great  events  above  re- 
ferred to  in  Egypt,  Chaldea,  China,  Greece,  Assyria  and  India  ? 

If  we  now  know  more  of  Egyptian  history,  than  we  do  of  that  of 
any  contemporary  nation  in  those  remote  epochs,  it  is  not  that  other 
nations  were  not  in  existence,  but  because  their  records  have  per- 
ished in  the  lapse  of  time — for  which  loss,  the  wisdom  and  the  fore- 
thought of  the  superior  Egyptian  civilization, have,  in  some  degree, 
given  us  a compensation.  I have,  in  a previous  discourse,  sketched 
the  modes  in  which  the  venerable  annals  of  other  nations  have  been 
swept  away,  leaving  us  to  mourn  over  their  irrecoverable  loss. 

Finally,  Sir  Walter  Raleigh,  nearly  300  years  ago,  (after  instancing 
the  nations  that  had  already  attained  to  greatness  in  the  days  of  Abra- 
ham, and  little  foreseeing  the  remote  antiquity,  that,  in  the  year  1843, 
can  be  insisted  upon  for  Egypt,  which  places  “ Menei  ” at  least  800 
years  before  Abraham’s  visit  to  Egypt — according  to  the  Hebrew  text 
computation,)  remarked,  “If  we  advisedly  consider  the  state  and 
countenance  of  the  world,  such  as  it  was  in  Abraham’s  time,  yea, 
before  his  birth,  we  shall  find,  that  it  were  very  ill  done,  by  following 
opinion,  without  the  guide  of  reason,  to  pare  the  times  over  deeply 
between  the  flood  and  Abraham ! because,  in  cutting  them  too  near 
the  quick,  the  reputation  of  the  whole  story  might  perchance  bleed,.’’’ 
In  that  which  such  a man,  as  the  ill-fated  Raleigh  had  penned,  and 
which  so  excellent  a divine  as  Dr.  Hales  had  endorsed,  before  the 
hieroglyphic  chronicles  of  Egypt  were  deciphered,  I may  safely  con- 
cur— acquainted,  as  I consider  myself  to  be,  with  Egyptian  subjects. 
Truly  did  the  poet  Campbell,  in  his  beautiful  address  to  a mummy, 
in  Belzoni’s  collection,  thus  apostrophize  the  fragile  relic  of  a once 
noble  being : 

“Antiquity  appears  to  have  begun, 

Long  after  thy  primeval  race  was  run.” 

In  order,  therefore,  that  I may  convey  no  erroneous  impressions, 
I have  prefaced  Egyptian  history  by  this  chronological  disquisition  ; 
and  it  may  be  fearlessly  maintained,  without  deserving  the  charge  of 
heterodoxy,  that,  in  rejecting  the  short  chronology  of  the  Hebrew 
texts  of  the  Pentateuch  (wherein  by  Archbishop  Usher’s  computation 
the  creation  of  the  world  is  fixed  at  4004  B.  C.  and  the  deluge  at 
2348,  ) as  inapplicable  to,  and  overthrown  by,  the  positive  facts  of 
hieroglyphicat  researches,  we  do  not  affect  the  validity  of  scriptural 
record  ; because,  the  Septuagint  version  and  the  venerable  array  of 
orthodox  churchmen,  who  support  the  latter’s  computation,  permit 
us  to  place  the  deluge  somewhere  about  3200  B.  C. — by  which  ar- 
rangement we  attain  a period  of  32  centuries,  and  one  that  gives  us 
“ample  room  and  verge  enough  ” to  reconstruct  the  history  of  ancient 
Egypt,  founded  upon  the  results  of  hieroglyphical  interpretations,  and 
corroborated  by  authorities,  sacred  and  profane. 

It  is  on  this  basis,  that  the  annals  of  Egypt  will  be  herein  consid- 
ered— one  that  allows  abundance  of  room  for  the  events  which  occu- 
pied the  several  branches  of  the  human  family,  between  the  Deluge 
of  Noah,  the  primitive  migration  of  man  in  the  days  of  Peleg,  with 
the  subsequent  dispersion  of  mankind  from  the  plains  of  Shinar,  and 
the  accession  of  the  first  Caucasian  monarch  to  the  undivided  throne 

Egypt,  Mencs  of  History,  and  Menei,  “ who  walks  with  Antun,” 
of  the  sculptures;  and  although  unable,  with  satisfac- 
tory precision,  to  define  within  a period  of  five  hundred 
years,  the  date  of  his  assuming  the  exclusive  sway  of 
Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  the  countries  typified  by  the 
Lotus,  and  the  Papyrus,  the  “ region  of  justice  and 
purity”  the  “ land  of  the  Sycamore,”  yet  various  cor- 
roborative circumstances  will  justify  the  hypothesis, 
that  his  reign  began  at  some  period  between  the  years 
2900  and  2400  B.  C. 

Having  stated  the  scriptural  grounds  upon  which  the  antiquity  I 
shall  unfold  for  Egypt  is  based,  it  becomes  necessary,  before  com- 
mencing the  history  of  that  country,  on  a scale  so  generally  novel  as 
will  by  me  be  adopted,  to  give  a succint  enumeration  of  the  principal 
profane  chroniclers,  upon  which  the  historical  portion  of  the  edifice 
is  reconstructed.  To  omit  doing  so,  would  defeat  the  object  of  these 
discourses,  which  is  to  give  a popular  view  of  subjects,  hitherto  han- 
dled only  by  the  most  erudite  scholars.  I shall  therefore  name  Manetho, 
Eratosthenes,  Josephus,  Herodotus,  and  Diodorus,  as  the  most  ancient 
writers  on  Egyptian  History.  I have  placed  them  in  the  order  in 
which  hieroglyphical  discoveries,  and  with  me,  long  practical  Egyp- 
tian associations  have  combined  to  give  them  authenticity  and  value. 
To  these,  the  other  and  later  Greek  and  Roman  writers,  such  as 
Strabo,  Tacitus,  Plutarch,  Pausanias,  Pliny,  &c.,  are  subordinate, 
though  frequently  of  eminent  value  and  assistance.  The  later  works 
of  Christian  chronologists,  such  as  Syncellus,  Eusebius,  with  a host  of 
others,  are  often  important ; and  it  may  be  presumed  I have  not 
omitted  to  consult  them  and  others,  either  when  the  originals  were 
within  my  attainment,  or  far  moee  frequently,  when  in  tho  course  of 


U ire  r 


reading  the  works  of  the  Champoliion  school,  I have  met  with  pas- 
sages extracted  by  modern  classics,  which  their  superior  learning 
enabled  them  to  produce.  It  is  only  on  the  previous  five,  however, 
that  I deem  it  necessary  to  make  some  remarks.  The  translations  of 
these  are  accessible  in  every  library;  but  for  the  few  precious  relics 
preserved  to  our  day  of  Manetho  and  Eratosthenes,  I refer  to  “Cory’s 
Ancient  Fragments,”  as  the  hieroglyphist’s  historical  text-book.  To 
proceed  further  would  be  to  write  on  bibliography,  which,  though  a 
most  interesting  subject  is  one  above  my  present  attainment;  and  I 
will  conclude  with  this  general  observation,  that  the  authors  through 
whose  imperfect  records  we  have  been  able  to  glean  historical  frag- 
ments of  remote  Egyptian  ages,  and  to  whom  20  years  ago,  we  were 
indebted  for  all  we  then  knew  on  these  abstruse  questions,  are  various 
in  nation,  in  epoch,  in  merit,  and  in  importance.  Apart  from  the 
Scriptures,  which  do  not  touch  on  Egyptian  internal  events  before 
Abraham,  (a  period  long  subsequent  to  the  occurrences  on  which  we 
shall  have  first  to  treat)  we  had  so  many  contradictory  annals,  that  it 
seemed  hopeless  to  arrive  at  any  reasonable  conclusion,  from  mere 
historical  narratives.  The  discovery  of  the  key  to  hieroglyphics  has 
enabled  us  to  discriminate  ; and  our  first  authority  in  Egyptian  chron 
icles  after  the  monuments,  is  Manetho. 

Among  the  manifold  advantages,  since  1820,  accruing  to  general 
knowledge  through  the  impetus  given  to  all  studies,  and  antiquarian 
researches,  by  Champoliion  and  his  school,  may  be  enumerated  the 
resuscitation  of  historical  fragments,  and  the  collection  and  re-trans 
lation  of  early  authors,  whose  boots  till  within  the  last  20  years  were 
looked  upon  with  distrust,  and  wdiose  accounts  w'ere  treated  as  fables. 
And  besides  the  excessive  value  in  Egyptian  Archaeology  that  now  ac 
companies  fragments,  such  as  Horus-Apollo,  Hermapion,  Poemander, 
Apulcius,  and  other  obsolete  waiters  too  numerous  for  specification ; 
the  intense  interest  excited  by  hieroglyphical  discoveries  has  caused 
new  and  more  faithful  transcriptions  of  the  remains  of  such  early 
chroniclers  as  Sanconiathon,  Manetho,  Berosus,  &c.  to  be  made  and 
republished.  These,  and  similar  sacred  historical  relics  are  now 
within  the  attainment  of  the  general  reader,  which,  before  hieroglyphi- 
cal researches  had  demonstrated  their  utility,  were  to  those  as  un- 
learned as  myself,  so  many  sealed  books. 

One  of  the  most  gifted  men  and  celebrated  scholars  of  the  present 
age,  with  whom  I was  for  a long  period  on  terms  of  social  intimacy, 
told  me,  while  we  were  one  day  repining  at  the  errors  and  misdirec- 
tions of  my  school-boy,  and  his  collegiate  education,  that  on  leaving 
the  University  of  Oxford,  he  was  immediately  thrown  into  literary 
and  scientific  society  in  London.  He  was  there  struck  with  amaze- 
ment and  chagrin,  at  the  constant  recurrence  of  topics  of  conversation, 
on  the  most  interesting  and  important  subjects,  but  which  to  him, 
who  had  won  the  first  honors  of  Oxford,  were  mysteries  he  could  not 
comprehend  ; and  so  ill-provided  was  he  at  the  age  of  22,  with  general 
information,  that  on  hearing  the  name  of  Linnaeus, { the  well-known 
naturalist)  he  thought  he  was  some  mythological  personage,  whose 
name  had  escaped  him,  and  actually  looked  into  “ Lempriere’s  Clas- 
sical Dictionary”  to  ascertain  who  he  was ! 

In  the  same  manner,  I can  well  remember  the  period,  long  after 
I had  left  a classical  school,  and  had  for  years  been  engaged  in  active 
life,  when  the  only  knowledge  I possessed  of  Manetho,  was  derived 
from  the  “Vicar  of  Wakefield,”  wherein  Mr.  Jenkinson,  in  treating 
on  the  cosmogony  of  the  world,  mentions  Sanconiathon,  Manetho  and 
Berosus.  I may  therefore  be  allowed  to  inform  others  who  the  author 
is,  on  whom  so  much  stress  is  laid,  and  whose  authority  in  Egyptian 
history  is  now  considered  of  such  importance,  referring  them,  at  the 
same  time,  to  “ Cory’s  Ancient  Fragments,”  for  all  that  we  possess  of 
his  once  voluminous  works,  bearing  on  the  points  under  consideration. 

Manetho,  was  a learned  Egyptian — a native  of  the  Sebennitic 
Nome  in  the  Eastern  Delta,  Lower  Egypt — high  priest,  and  sacred 
scribe  of  Heliopolis,  who  flourished  about  the  year  2G0,  B.  C.,  and  who 
at  the  command  of  Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  composed  a history  of  the 
kings  of  Egypt,  in  the  Greek  language,  from  the  earliest  times  down 
to  Alexander’s  invasion,  B.  C.  332.  This  work  he  dedicated  to  Phila- 
delphus, with  the  following  letter : 

“ The  Epistle  of  Manetho,  the  Sebennyte,  to  Ptolemaeus  Phila- 
delphus : 

“To  the  great  and  august  king  Ptolemseus,  Manetho,  the  high  priest 
and  scribe  of  the  sacred  Adyta  in  Egypt,  being  by  birth  a Sebennyte, 
and  a citizen  of  Heliopolis,  to  his  sovereign  Ptolemseus,  humbly 
greeting : 

“ It  is  right  for  us,  most  mighty  king,  to  pay  attention  to  all  things 
which  it  is  your  pleasure  we  should  take  into  consideration.  In 
answer,  therefore,  to  your  inquiries,  concerning  the  things  which  shall 
come  to  pass  in  the  world,  I shall,  according  to  your  commands,  lay 
before  you  what  I have  gathered  from  the  sacred  books  written  by 
Hermes  Trismegistus,  our  forefather.  Farewell,  my  prince  and  sove- 
reign.” 

It  is  very  curious,  that  Manetho,  besides  giving  a compendious 
history  of  the  past,  appears  to  have  also  furnished  to  Ptolemy  some 
extracts  of  early  prophecies  concerning  the  future.  These  last, 
however,  are  lost  to  us,  and  it  is  of  no  use  to  speculate  about  them. 

The  history  was  compiled  from  the  most  ancient  and  authentic 
sources,  by  an  Egyptian,  whose  position  and  learning,  aided  by  the 
influence  of  the  government,  enabled  him  to  obtain  accurate  inform- 
ation. The  sacred  incrlptions  on  the  columns  of  Hermes,  and  the 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


38 

books  of  Thoth-trismegistus,  seem  to  have  been  his  sources ; while 
we  may  infer,  that  the  celebrated  Library  of  Alexandria,  the  papyri 
of  the  sacerdotal  order,  the  sculptures  on  the  temples  and  the  genea- 
logical tablets  (some  of  which  have  come  down  to  us,)  were  con- 
sulted by  him,  and  afforded  him  abundance  of  materials. 

This  great  work  has  been  lost ; and  the  rediscovery  of  one  copy  of 
Manetho  would  be  the  most  desirable  and  satisfactory  event  that  could 
be  conceived  in  Egyptian,  and  we  may  add,  in  universal  history  and 
chronology.  As  the  work  of  an  Egyptian,  testifying  the  glory  of  his 
nation,  it  was  probably  conscientiously  prepared ; although  he  may 
have  allowed  national  pride  to  give  a too  partial  coloring  to  his  nar- 
ration, and  possibly  an  exaggerated  view  of  his  country’s  antiquity. 
But  we  can  no  longer  be  harsh  in  our  criticisms;  seeing,  that  to  his 
16th  Dvn.  he  is  confirmed  by  the  sculptures,  while  every  new  step 
of  discovery  that  is  made  in  hieroglyphics,  gives  some  new  confirm- 
atory light  in  support  of  Manetho’s  earlier  arrangement.  Again, 
because  we  have  only  mutilated  extracts  of  his  original ; one,  a 
fragment  preseved  by  Josephffs,  which  seems  to  have  been  copied 
verbatim  from  Manetho’s  work  ; another  is  an  abstract  in  the  chro- 
nology of  Syncellus,  who  did  not  even  see  the  original  book  himself, 
but  embodied  in  his  compilation  the  extracts  he  found  in  Julius  Afri- 
canus  and  Eusebius.  Within  the  last  few  years,  the  discovery  of  an 
Armenian  version  of  Eusebius,  has  added  some  better  readings  to 
those  we  formerly  possessed. 

These  writers,  Josephus,  Eusebius  and  Julius  Africanus,  differ  so 
much  from  each  other  in  the  several  portions  of  Manetho’s  history 
of  which  they  present  the  extracts,  that,  in  their  time,  either  great 
errors  had  crept  into  the  then-existing  copies  of  Manetho,  or  one  or 
more  of  them  were  corrupted  by  design ; especially  in  the  instance 
of  Eusebius,  who  evidently  suppressed  some  parts,  and  mutilated 
others,  to  make  Manetho,  by  a pious  fraud,  conform  to  his  own 
peculiar  and  contracted  system  of  cosmogony. 

It  will  be  seen  how  the  hieroglyphics  enable  us  to  discriminate  error 
from  truth,  and  to  recompose  and  correct  Manetho.  The  indefati- 
gable Cory  has  rendered  Manetho  easy  of  access  ; and  it  is  due  to  the 
learned  Prichard,  to  point  him  out  as  the  one  who  vindicated  Mane- 
tho’s claim  to  our  credence  in  1819,  before  Champollion’s  discoveries, 
no  less  than  as  one  who  proved  that  many  ancient  authors,  whom 
modern  scepticism  had  rejected,  were,  in  their  annals,  not  undeserv- 
ing of  belief.  It  is  to  be  regretted,  that  Prichard  in  his  more  recent 
work  on  ethnology  and  the  human  species,  does  not  give  due  weight 
to  the  discoveries  of  the  Champollion  school  on  ancient  Egyptian 
subjects ; nor  is  he  by  any  means  correctly  informed  on  modern  ones  : 
but  this  vacuum  is  now  about  to  be  filled  up  with  a mass  of  anatom- 
ical, geographical,  historical  and  monumental  evidences  in  the  “Cra- 
nia rEgyptiaca  ” of  Dr.  Morton,  of  Philadelphia. 

Manetho  is  herein  regarded  as  the  authority,  par  excellence  ; with- 
out, however,  pretending  to  claim  for  the  length  of  his  reigns  undue 
credence,  or  to  tax  him  with  errors  that  proceed  from  his  copyists 
rather  than  from  himself ; especially,  when  the  “ Old  Chronicle  ” 
preserved  by  Syncellus  was  evidently  known  to  and  consulted  by 
him.  In  a subsequent  chapter  I present  a table  of  his  Egyptian  Dy- 
nasties, which  I shall  explain  in  due  course  ; and  would  only  observe, 
that  those  figures  in  smaller  type  are  doubtful,  and  that  there  are 
plausible  reasons  to  reduce  the  period  from  the  1st  to  the  end  of  the 
15th  Dynasty  to  443  years,  as  I have  noted  in  the  relative  column. 

Eratosthenes  of  Cyrene,  the  grammarian,  mathematician,  astro- 
nomer and  geographer,  was  superintendent  of  the  Alexandria  Library 
in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Evergetes,  and  lived  about  200  B.  C.,  or  60 
years  after  Manetho.  It  appears  he  constructed  his  Laterculus,  or 
catalogue  of  Egyptian  kings,  by  order  of  Ptolemy,  from  Egyptian 
records  and  from  information  communicated  to  him  by  the  sacred 
scribes  of  Diospolis — Thebes. 

The  original  work  has  perished  ; and  the  only  portion  extant  is  a 
fragment  preserved  by  the  diligent  compiler  Syncellus,  from  an  ex- 
tract he  found  in  the  chronography  of  Apollodorus,  whose  work  no 
longer  exists.  As  his  Laterculus  gives  tire  translations  of  some  of 
the  Egyptian  names  of  kings,  it  has  been  found  useful : but  inasmuch 
as  it  appears  he  wrote  with  a predetermination  to  cast  the  labors  of 
his  predecessor  Manetho  into  disrepute,  and  as  the  latter  is  infinitely 
more  conformable  to  the  sculptures,  the  catalogue  of  Eratosthenes 
holds  but  a subordinate  station;  while  we  cannot  forget  the  witty 
remark  of  Hipparchus,  that  Eratosthenes  “ wrote  mathematically 
about  geography,  and  geographically  about  mathematics.” 

With  the  fact  staring  us  in  the  face,  that  Manetho,  in  names,  in 
rimes  and  in  number  of  kings,  has  been  so  remarkably  confirmed 
up  to  the  16th  Dynasty  by  the  mon-aments,  we  need  not  lay  much 
stress  on  the  discrepancies  of  Eratosthenes.  It  may  well  be  con- 
ceded, that  a learned  Egyptian,  who  composed,  by  order  of  his  king, 
a record  of  his  own  nation  in  the  Greek  language,  from  the  most 
authentic  sources,  was  less  liable  to  err,  as  well  as  more  likely  to 
obtain  correct  information,  than  a foreigner,  who  may  have  spoken, 
read  and  wrote  (but  probably  did  not)  in  the  Egyptian  language. 
And,  with  the  constant  evidence  of  Greek  mendacity  and  utter  igno- 
rance in  Egyptian  matters  before  our  eyes,  we  may  make  due  allow- 
ance for  the  envy  and  jealousy  of  a Hellene,  at  the  antiquity  of  a 
country,  which  was  already  ancient  long  ere  the  fathers  of  the  Greeks 
were  known  in  history. 

Josephus  is  the  well  known  Jewish  historian,  who  wrote  at  Rome, 
Boon  after  the  full  of  Jerusalem.  As  before  stated,  his  chronology, 


according  with  the  Septuagint,  renders  him  valuable  for  daus ; while 
we  are  indebted  to  his  defence  against  Apion,  for  some  fragments 
of  Manetho’s  history,  that  are  of  the  utmost  importance. 

The  works  of  Herodotus  and  Diodorus  are  too  familiar  to  general 
readers,  to  require  much  more  than  designation.  The  former  was 
in  Egypt  about  430  years  B.  C.,  during  the  dominion  of  the  Persians, 
and  after  Egypt  had  fallen  entirely  from  her  pristine  greatness.  The 
latter  was  in  Egypt  in  40  B.  C.,  toward  the  close  of  the  Ptolemaic 
Dynasty,  at  a still  lower  period  of  degradation. 

Valuable,  as  are  the  works  of  these  two  Greek  authors,  they  have 
fallen  very  considerably  in  our  estimation,  since  Egypt  as  a country, 
and  the  ancient  Egyptians  as  a people  have  become  better  known  to  < , 
us  ; and  the  inconsistencies,  misstatements,  misrepresentations,  mis-  ' 
conceptions  and  absurdities,  that  are  hourly  exposed  in  their  accounts 
of  Egypt,  more  than  compensate  for  the  information,  in  which,  by 
accident,  they  are  correct.  This  assertion  may  seem  audacious ; 
but  will  be  substantiated  in  the  sequel,  when  a comparison  is  insti- 
tuted between  Egyptian  history,  as  developed  in  these  chapters  and 
future  lectures,  and  the  accounts  of  Herodotus  or  Diodorus. 

It  would  require  a volume  to  elucidate  the  discrepancies,  now  de- 
monstrable, between  many,  nay  most  of  the  assertions  of  Herodotus 
and  Diodorus,  in  regard  to  almost  every  subject  relating  to  ancient 
Egypt ; and  the  facts,  with  which  we  are  made  acquainted,  in  the 
works  of  the  whole  Champollion  school.  Nor,  in  common  fairness, 
must  my  assertions  be  doubted,  until  an  antagonist  shall  have  actually 
verified  in  Champollion,  Rosellini  and  Wilkinson,  some  of  the  points 
in  which  Greek  authors  are  shown  to  be  so  lamentably  ignorant.  I 
will,  however,  add  the  following  reasons,  gleaned  chiefly  from  loni* 
personal  acquaintance  with  Egypt,  to  show  that  it  was  not  in  the  ntT 
ture  of  things  that  Herodotus  or  Diodorus  could  be  often  correct. 

In  the  first  place,  Herodotus,  though  a learned  and  highly  respect, 
able  Greek,  and  who,  as  the  greatest  of  their  ancient  travellers  and 
universal  historians,  deserves  our  respect  and  gratitude,  was  in  Egypt, 
a stranger.  He  was  certainly  not  in  literary,  or  scientific,  or  fash- 
ionable, or  aristocratic  society  in  that  country  ; which  he  visited,  after 
intercourse  with  the  Greeks,  and  the  Persian  conquest  had  ruined 
the  former  greatness  of  the  higher  castes,  and  had  corrupted  the  in. 
habitants  of  Lower  Egypt,  with  whom  Herodotus  chiefly  mixed. 
For  his  own  sake,  we  must  hope  he  did  not  (although  he  says  he  did, 
as  far  as  the  first  cataract)  visit  Upper  Egypt,  else  he  would  not  have 
left  Thebes  undescribed;  or  have  listened  to  the  idle  tale,  that  the 
sources  of  the  Nile  were  at  Elephantine  ! 

In  his  day,  500  years  of  decline  had  deteriorated  the  Priest-caste, 
the  only  depositaries  of  history  in  Egypt.  As  a foreigner,  Herodotus 
was  looked  upon  by  the  sinking  aristocracy  of  Egypt  in  the  light  of 
an  “ impure  gentile  and  utterly  ignorant  of  the  language,  he  must 
have  gleaned  all  his  information  through  an  interpreter.  If,  as  we 
have  a full  right  to  do,  we  judge  of  Herodotus’s  interpreter  by  those 
of  travellers  in  modern  times,  the  result  with  respect  to  the  sort  of 
information  he  could  receive  through  such  a medium,  may  well  be 
imagined.  Nay,  it  is  proved,  by  his  mistakes  upon  almost  every 
Egyptian  subject  which  he  handles  in  Euterpe. 

Like  some  English  and  other  modern  writers,  who  compose  vol- 
umes on  that  misrepresented  country,  that  are  like  Hodges’  razors, 
only  made  to  sell,  Herodotus  prepared  his  work  to  read  at  the  Olym- 
pic games  to  a Grecian  audience,  more  ignorant  in  those  days  on 
Egyptian  affairs,  than  even  Europeans  of  modern  times  are  generally ; 
and  it  was  necessary  to  interlard  his  discourse  with  occasional  fabri- 
cations, some  of  which  will  scarcely  bear  the  dubious  praise  of  “ So 
non  d vero,  d ben  trovato.” 

Diodorus  was  in  Egypt  just  before  the  downfall  of  the  house  of 
Lagus,  in  B.  C.  40,  when  the  decline  of  Egyptian  learning  had  been 
going  on  for  700  years — 400  of  which  had  been  spent  under  the  yoke 
of  foreign  masters.  Diodorus  copied  Herodotus,  and  Hecataeus  ol 
Miletus,  who  had  visited  and  written  on  Egypt,  in  the  reign  of  Da- 
rius; and,  perhaps  the  later  work  of  Hecataeus  of  Abdera,  who  was 
in  Egypt  after  Alexander  ; and  who,  from  the  little  we  know  of  him, 
appears  to  have  been  an  intelligent  man,  although,  to  the  Egyptians, 
all  of  them  were  naught  but  “impure  foreigners” — so  termed  in  hie- 
roglyphical  legends  by  the  Egyptians ; in  the  same  manner,  that  for- 
eign nations  are,  to  this  day,  in  China,  termed  “outside  barbarians.” 
Other  information  was  imbibed  by  Diodorus,  from  Greeks  in  Lower 
Egypt;  whose  profound  ignorance  of  Egyptian  learning  is  only  ex- 
ceeded by  their  indifference,  their  stupid  self-complacency  and  egre- 
gious impudence.  It  will  not  be  pretended  that  Diodorus  could 
speak  Egyptian. 

There  is  so  little  dependence  to  be  placed  on  the  accounts  of  He- 
rodotus or  Diodorus,  excepting  on  what  they  actually  saw  with  their 
own  eyes,  or  could  comprehend  from  its  nature  when  they  saw  it, 
that,  by  hieroglyphists  their  narratives  are  followed  only  in  the  ab- 
sence of  better  guides ; or,  when  their  accounts  are  confirmed  by 
other  testimony.  They  could  not  discriminate  between  the  truth  or 
falsehood  of  the  things  that  were  told  them  ; and  the  only  way  of 
accounting  for  the  nonsense  they  often  record,  is  to  suppose,  that  the 
humorous  Egyptians  purposely  misled  them.  We  have  to  thank 
them  however  for  putting  all  down  ; leaving  us  the  task  of  culling 
the  pearls  from  the  rubbish  ; for  there  is  no  doctrine,  however  incon- 
sistent or  improbable,  that  cannot  be  supported  by  quotations  from 
Herodotus  or  Diodorus. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


39 


Let  any  stranger  at  the  present  day,  through  the  medium  of  an 
interpreter  ask.  the  most  intelligent  native  in  the  Delta,  a question 
about  modern  Nubia,  and  its  present  relations  with  Egypt : and  the 
answer  will  be  a fable,  modelled  into  the  form  the  Felldh  deems 
most  likely  to  be  pleasing  to  the  stranger,  if  he  does  not  con- 
fess his  utter  ignorance  thereon ; a candor  rare  in  the  valley  of  the 
Nile,  and  possibly  elsewhere. 

We  must  not  merely  look  at  the  authority,  but  at  the  authority’s 
resources  and  qualifications  for  information,  no  less  than  at  the  na- 
ture of  the  sources  whence  he  could  acquire  that  information.  It 
would  surprise  any  one  to  read  descriptions  of  Egypt  in  some  mod- 
ern works  (published  since  Champollion’s  discoveries,)  and  then  go 
to  Cairo  and  ask  old  residents  their  opinions  thereon. 

The  authority  of  Herodotus  and  Diodorus  on  ancient  Egyptian, 
and  still  more  on  ancient  Ethiopian  questions,  distant  1000  miles 
from  the  provinces  they  visited  (the  epochs  of  the  occurrence  of 
which,  date  from  2000  to  3000  years  before  they  were  in  Egypt,)  is 
of  about  the  same  value,  as  would  be  the  authority  of  some  modern 
travellers  of  the  last  half  century,  whose  puerile  information  about 
even  modern  Cairo  would  be  derived  during  a fortnight’s  residence, 
from  an  Arab  Rais,  or  captain,  a donkey-driver,  or  a European  hotel- 
keeper  ! Ask  any  of  these  last,  about  events  which  took  place  in 
Egypt  only  500  years  ago  ! 

Travellers,  therefore,  who  go  beyond  the  first  impressions  they 
receive,  are  liable  to  err,  if  they  attempt,  without  time  and  adequate 
study,  to  explain  even  what  they  behold. 

That  information  must  be  incorrect  which  is  solely  derived  from  a 
village  Arab  Sheykh,  or  Turkish  Ntizir,  on  events  whereon  it  is  im- 
possible these  can  possess  any  information — and  which,  in  either 
case,  is  given  to  the  traveller,  ignorant  of  Arabic,  through  the  medium 
of  a stupid  rascal,  who,  because  he  can  jabber  a few  words  of  Eng- 
lish, waits  at  table  and  cleans  your  shoes,  is  dignified  by  the  inappli- 
cable and  inappropriate  title  of  “ dragoman”  or  interpreter.  Let 
me  ask,  have  not  Americans  just  reason  to  complain  of  the  cursory 
notes  of  English  travellers,  taken,  during  a railroad  and  steamboat 
trip,  through  the  United  States?  Yet,  in  this  case  the  traveller 
speaks  the  same  language  as  the  nation,  through  whose  country  he 
whirls  like  an  “ ignis-fatuus.” 

Judge  then  how  incompetent  must  that  traveller  be,  in  a foreign 
land,  unacquainted  with  the  language  of  the  natives,  when  he  inquires 
of  unlettered  Felldhs,  or  of  European  freshmen,  about  events  that 
transpired  thousands  of  years  before  his  visit ; and  yet,  such  was 
precisely  the  position  of  Herodotus  and  Diodorus,  in  Egypt. 

If,  therefore,  my  own  assertions  differ  front  those  met  with  in 
works  of  any  epoch,  not  written  by  disciples  of  the  Champollion 
school,  the  reader  will  be  so  indulgent  as  to  make  some  allowance 
for  diversities  of  opinion,  between  one  who  knows  a country  from 
23  years  of  domicile  and  many  years  of  critical  investigation,  and 
others,  whose  sojourn  therein  rarely  equalled  the  same  number  of 
months,  generally  fell  within  the  same  number  of  weeks,  and  often 
did  not  exceed  the  same  number  of  days. 

When  Herodotus  or  Diodorus  are  quoted  upon  subjects,  which  we 
can  prove  they  could  learn  little  or  nothing  about,  it  is  of  no  great 
consequence  what  inference  may  be  derived  from  their  conclusions  ; 
because  the  well  informed  hierologists  have  better  sources  of  inform- 
ation ; and  may  draw  inferences  from  existing  monuments  and 
Egyptian  autocthon  chronicles,  which  give  them,  in  1843,  an  infi- 
nitely superior  knowledge  of  early  Egypt  (dating  2000  years  before 
the  earliest  Greek  historian)  than  could  be  acquired  by,  or  was 
known  to,  the  Greeks,  or  the  Romans ; whose  testimony  may  be 
very  often  useful,  but  it  is  not  evidence. 

All  authors  who  wrote  on  Egypt  and  Ethiopia,  before  the  discov- 
eries of  Champollion,  or  without  a thorough  perusal  of  the  works  of 
his  school,  are  liable  to  error  on  subjects  now  perfectly  understood  ; 
and,  in  the  present  year,  1843,  for  a man  to  write  on  ancient  Egypt, 
without  first  making  himself  really  acquainted  with  what  in  the  last 
20  years  has  been  done  by  the  Champollions,  by  Rosellini,  by  Wil- 
kinson and  all  the  hicroglyphical  students,  is  to  act  “ the  play  of 
Hamlet,  the  part  of  Hamlet  being  left  out  by  particular  desire.” 
Suppose  an  Egyptian  were  to  write  a history  of  the  United  States  ; 
and  to  make  a rule  of  never  consulting  one  American  author,  while 
treating  on  American  institutions,  systems  of  government,  manners 
and  customs,  annals  or  personages ; what  sort  of  a book  would  he 
write  ? and  what  opinion  would  the  citizens  of  the  United  States 
have  of  his  one-sided  and  narrow-minded  production,  teeming,  as  it 
necessarily  would,  with  nonsense,  errors  and  misrepresentation  ! 
And  yet,  it  is  a deed  in  absurdity  precisely  parallel  for  any  one,  in 
1843,  to  write  on  ancient  Egypt,  without  ascertaining  first  what  its 
ancient  inhabitants  record  of  themselves. 

It  is  the  special  object  of  these  discourses  to  show  what  Egyptian 
history  really  is,  at  the  present  day ; and  not  to  omit  the  facts,  now 
elicited  by  the  interpretation  of  hieroglyphical  chronicles. 

At  last,  therefore,  we  can  spread  our  canvas  to  the  breeze,  and 
begin  our  voyage  down  the  stream  of  time.  Fogs  and  mists  preclude 
a very  distinct  sight  of  the  course.  We  have  many  shoals  to  avoid  ; 
and  there  are  many  long  and  gloomy  portages,  over  which  we  must 
carry  our  imaginary  bark,  without  knowing  precisely  the  len<rih  or 
the  course  of  the  river.  As  we  descend,  we  shall  find  enormous 
land-marks,  attesting  the  greatness  of  their  builders,  without  always 
telling  the  age  of  their  erection.  We  shall  steer  by  them  all;  no- 


ting the  relative  bearings  of  each;  till,  having  reached  the  obelisk  of 
Heliopolis,  B.  C.  2088,  the  mists  will  gradually  dissipate  as  we  pro- 
ceed; but  the  shoals  are  still  numerous,  and  the  current  still  swift. 
Soon,  however,  we  arrive  at  the  stupendous  Hypostyle  Halls  of  Kar- 
nac,  at  the  temples  and  palaces  of  Thebes,  the  hoary  “ Amunei,”  or 
abode  of  Amun,  about  the  year  1800  B.  C.  ; from  which  time,  the 
voyage  will  be  easy  and  the  scenery  interesting,  for  a period  of  2000 
years,  when  the  hieroglyphical  annals  cease,  and  subsequent  events 
are  chronicled  in  universal  history. 


CHAPTER  FIFTH. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  preface  this  portion  of  my  subject  with  a 
lengthened  description  of  Egypt,  as  a country  ; for  its  geographical 
position  “ in  immiti  solo the  general  features  of  its  soil,  climate 
and  fertility,  and  its  semi-Asiatic,  semi-African  aspect,  are  familiar 
to  the  reader ; or,  in  any  case,  may  be  readily  gleaned  from  popular 
works  everywhere  accessible. 

In  my  lecture  room,  a large  Map,  colored  with  due  reference  to  its 
three  leading  features,  the  Nile,  the  Alluvium,  and  the  Rocky  Desert, 
conveys,  at  a glance,  a more  correct  idea  of  Egypt  than  can  be  oth- 
erwise acquired ; and  my  familiarity  with  the  whole  ground  will 
enable  me,  as  occasion  offers,  to  explain  them  by  oral  elucidations. 

I subjoin  a skeleton  map  of  the  entire  Valley  of  the  Nile,  which 
will  serve  to  make  the  sequel  sufficiently  intelligible. 

MAP  OF  THE  NILE. 


Lonpitnrle.  Meridian  of  Paris. 

XXXV.  XXX. 


40 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


Note. — The  faint  lines  on  each  side  of  the  Nile  will  give  a fair  idea  of 
the  alluvial  soil,  and  its  decrease,  as  we  ascend  the  river  front  the  sea. 

To  the  East  and  IVest  of  the  Nile,  beyond  [he  frill t line,  is  Rocky  Desert. 
Prom  Memphis  to  Hadjar  Silsilis,  the  hills  are  limestone.  At  Hadjar  Sib 
silis,  sandstone.  At  Syene,  or  Asswan,  granite.  Above  the  1st  Cataract, 
sandstone  predominates.  At  Mount  Sinai,  granite. 

The  sand  is  chiefly  at  the  northern  terminus  of  the  hills  below  Memphis, 
on  the  Suez  desert,  and  on  the  sea  coast.  A narrow  strip  generally  occurs 
between  the  alluvial  soil  on  each  side  of  the  Nile,  and  the  hills.  These  last 
begin  at  Cairo. 


Moreover,  in  treating  on  Temples,  Tombs,  Pyramids,  and  other 
monuments,  I shall  refrain  from  a description,  or  detailed  specifica- 
tion of  their  relative  sizes,  plans,  elevations,  or  dimensions,  in  ancient 
times,  or  at  the  present  hour,  beyond  what  may  have  a direct  bear- 
ing on  the  point  under  discussion;  because,  these  may  also  be  gath- 
ered by  the  reader  from  works  of  travel,  popular  geographies,  and 
similar  well-known  authorities. 

Whether  the  great  pyramid  be  454  feet  high,  or  474,  is  to  us  a 
matter  of  indifference.  Whether  the  statue  called  Memnon,  be 
vocal,  or  not,  we  claim  to  be  scarcely  worth  inquiry  ; and  what  may, 
peradventure,  be  the  precise  length  of  the  tail  of  the  Great  Sphinx, 
can  be  better  decided  by  others  more  learned  than  the  -writer. 
In  these  interesting  and  important  matters,  we  shall  endeavor  to  be 
very  superficial ; for  these  chapters,  and  my  subsequent  oral  lectures, 
will  only  show  who  were  the  builders  of  these  edifices;  when  they 
were  erected  ; and  what  purposes  they  were  intended  to  serve  ; with 
such  elucidations  as  may  be  afforded  by  the  hieroglyphics. 

The  Septuagint  computation  for  the  era  of  the  Flood,  being  taken 
as  our  extreme  point  of  vision,  the  remote  antiquity  required  for 
Egypt  sends  us  to  the  Bible,  for  the  account  of  the  earliest  migrations 
of  the  human  race. 

Genesis  ix.  18th. — “ And  the  sons  of  Noah,  that  went  forth  of  the 
ark,  were  Shem,  and  Ham,  and  Japheth:  and  Ham  is  the  father  of 
Canaan.”  19th. — “ These  are  the  three  sons  of  Noah  : and  of  them 
was  the  whole  earth  overspread.”  Ch.  x.  6th. — “And  the  sons  of  Ham, 
Cush,  and  Mizraim,  and  Phut,  and  Canaan.”  13th. — “ And  Miz- 
raim  begat  Ludim,  and  Anamim,  and  Lehabiin,  and  Naphtuhim.” 
14th. — “And  Pathrusim,  and  Casluhim,  (out  of  whom  came  Philis- 
tim)  and  Caphtorim.”  After  indicating  the  children  of  Canaan,  the 
20th  verse  declares,  “ These  are  the  sons  of  Ham,  after  their 
tongues,  in  their  countries,  and  in  their  nations.”  In  1st  Chronicles, 
I.,  verses  4,  8,  11,  12,  we  obtain  the  same  account  verbatim. 

In  the  general  allotment  of  territories  to  the  offspring  of  Noah, 
Egypt,  (by  the  concurrent  testimony  of  all  biblical  commentators) 
was  assigned  to  Mizraim,  son  of  Ham,  as  a domain  and  for  an 
inheritance.  Thither  he  must  have  proceeded  from  the  banks  of  the 
Euphrates  in  Asia,  accompanied  probably  by  Ham,  his  father:  an 
inference  not  inconsistent  with  patriarchal  longevity  and  the  silence 
of  Scripture,  when  we  know  that  Egypt  was  termed  Ham,  or  Kheme, 
by  the  Egyptians,  from  the  earliest  period  of  hieroglyphical  writing  ; 


KHeM,  Kah,  the  Land  of  Ham. 


A question  arises,  whether  the  migration  of  Mizraim  may  not 
have  been  antecedent  to  the  dispersion  of  the  rest  of  mankind  from 
Shinar ; that  is,  whether  it  may  not  have  been  anterior  to  the 
confusion  of  tongues,  on  the  destruction  of  Babel.  We  learn 
from  Genesis  x.,  25,  that  the  great  grandson  of  Noah  “ was  Peleg  ; 
for  in  his  day  was  the  earth  divided.”  Now,  in  Hebrew,  Peleg 
means  to  sever,  to  separate  : and,  between  the  apparently  peaceful 
migration  (in  Peleg’s  time)  of  the  patriarchal  grandchildren,  when 
“ the  whole  earth  was  of  one  language  and  one  speech,”  while  “ they 
journeyed  from  the  east  toward  the  west,”  and  the  forcible  disper- 
sion ( after  mankind  had  dwelt  “ in  a plain  in  the  land  of  Shinar”) 
of  man  subsequently  to  the  confusion  of  tongues  at  Babel,  there  is, 
chronologically,  an  intervening  interval  of  sixty  years,  or,  probably, 
of  a longer  period. 

It  has  been  claimed,  by  Bryant  and  others,  that  the  confusion  of 
tongues  was  a labial  failure — that  the  wrath  of  the  Almighty  fell  solely 
on  the  Cushites  as  a people,  with  a few  rebel  associates  of  the  tribes 
of  Shem  and  Japheth ; and  need  not  have  included  all  mankind, 
as  the  virtuous  portion  of  Noah’s  immediate  family  (with  the  arch- 
patriarch Noah  himself,  “ who  lived  after  the  flood  three  hundred  and 
fifty  years,”  and  who  was  alive  somewhere  on  the  earth  during  the 
events  of  Babel,)  may,  in  ©bedience  to  the  Almighty’s  mandate,  have 
departed  in  the  days  of  Peleg — the  time  of  the  peaceful  separation — 
to  the  countries  allotted  to  them. 

This  speculative  view  is  so  far  applicable  to  Egypt,  that,  in  this 
case,  Mizraim,  who  may  have  acquired  the  most  fertile  soil  of  the 
earth  as  a grant  from  Providence,  was  not  an  outcast  from  the  patri- 
archal family : while,  being  of  the  same  blood  with  Noah  himself, 
he  was  in  physical  conformation  a Caucasian,  and  in  geographical 
origin  an  Asiatic. 


Hebraical  scholars  afford  us  the  following  explanation  of  “ Shem, 
Ham,  and  Japheth.” 

We  learn  from  Genesis  x.,  21 — that  Japheth  was  the  elder  of 
Noah’s  children.  The  exact  meaning  of  Japheth,  according  to  Dr. 
Lamb,  is  “ the  man  of  the  opening  of  the  tent.”  Now  in  ch.  ix.,  the 


27th  verse,  we  read,  “ God  shall  enlarge  Japheth,  and  he  shall  dwell 
in  the  tents  of  Shem.”  But  a more  appropriate  translation  of  the 
Hebrew  text  is,  “ God  shall  open  wide  the  door  of  the  tabernacle 
to  the  descendants  of  Japheth,  and  they  shall  dwell  in  the  taberna- 
cles of  the  children  of  Shem.”  Whereby  we  perceive  a remarkable 
prophecy,  of  the  call  of  the  Gentiles  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
Jewish  church,  many  ages  prior  to  the  birth  of  Abraham  ; and  one 
that  is  rapidly  drawing  to  fulfilment  throughout  the  East,  in  a po- 
litical point  of  view,  if  “ coming  events  cast  their  shadows  before.” 
Those  who  are  really  acquainted  with  what  the  East  is,  are  persuaded, 
with  respect  to  the  Holy  Land  itself,  that  the  Jews,  as  a nation,  have 
forfeited  all  right  to  the  possession  of  it ; that  God  has  totally,  per- 
haps finally,  deprived  them  of  it ; and  physically  disqualified  them,  as  jjj 
a nation,  from  its  future  independent  occupation.  “ It  has  for  cen- 
turies been  trodden  of  the  Gentiles.  No  people  have  been  able  to 
establish  themselves  securely  for  any  length  time  within  its  pre- 
cincts, nor  will  any,  until  it  may  please  God  to  grant  it  to  that  na- 
tion, or  to  that  family,  whom  he  may  choose” — which,  if  organic 
laws  have  any  effect  on  our  social  constitution,  will  be  to  the  con- 
quering hand  of  the  “ Andax  genus  Japethi” — the  bold  race  of 
Japheth.  Many  pious  Christians,  and  orthodox  divines,  consider  the 
promises  of  the  restoration  of  the  Jews  to  be  of  a spiritual,  and  not 
of  a temporal  nature. 

Again,  according  to  a rigid  analysis  of  the  Hebrew  text,  it  is  clear 
that  Shem  and  Ham  were  twin  brothers. 

Shem  signifies  “ the  white  or  fair  twin ” — Ham,  “ the  dark  or 
swarthy  twin;”  and  this  is  physiologically  correct ; because  the  twin 
offspring  of  the  same  parents  cannot  vary  much  in  cuticular  appear- 
ance. 

The  fact,  that  these  brothers  were  twins,  explains  the  reason  why 
we  find  them  always  placed  in  this  order,  Shem,  Ham,  and  then 
Japheth.  As  the  ancestor  of  the  Jews  themselves,  and  of  the  prom- 
ised seed,  we  can  understand  why  precedence  should  be  given  to 
Shem  ; and  then  Japheth  (who  was  senior  to  Shem)  ought  to  follow 
before  Ham  ; but  as  the  brothers,  Shem  and  Ham,  were  the  produce 
of  one  birth,  they  were  not  separated.  Ham,  therefore,  although 
the  “ younger  son”  of  Noah — Genesis  ix.,  24 — always  takes  prece- 
dence of  the  eldest  of  the  three  brothers. 

I dwell  rather  upon  the  fact,  that  Shem  and  Ham  were,  according 
to  the  Hebrew  text,  twin  brothers,  to  show  that,  physiologically,  they 
were  identical  in  race;  with  the  trifling  distinction  (frequently  ob- 
servable between  twins,  as  they  advance  in  age,  at  the  present  day,) 
that  Ham  was  a shade  or  two  more  swarthy  than  his  brother  Shem ; 
who,  as  the  father  of  the  Jews, -was  a pure  white  man. 

The  name  of  Ham  was,  by  the  Egyptians,  preserved  in  the  name  of 
their  country.  The  meaning  of  the  Hebrew  root,  Ham,  is  “ dark — 
brown  of  color ;”  no  less  than  “ heat,”  and  especially  “ solar  heat.” 

In  Coptic  it  has  precisely  the  same  signification.  And  in  Arabic  it 
likewise  means  “ swarthy  of  color,”  as,  for  instance,  unbleached  linen 
is  called  “goomksh -kham” — also,  heat,  &c. : but  in  no  Semitic  lan- 
guage does  Ham,  as  a color,  strictly  mean  black. 

Another  popular  fallacy,  and  one  which,  being  very  prevalent, 
produces  many  erroneous  deductions,  is  the  supposition  that  any 
curse  attached  itself  to  Ham : who,  as  the  father  of  the  Egyptians, 
has  been  therefore  made  the  parent  of  other  so-called  African  nations. 

This  anomaly,  which  originates  in  the  misconceptions  of  the  early 
Fathers,  falls  to  the  ground,  when  we  read  with  attention  from  the 
20th  to  the  27th  verses  of  ix.  Genesis.  It  is  there  expressly  recorded 
as  Noah’s  prophetic  denunciation,  not  of  Ham,  nor  of  Cush,  nor  of 
Mizraim,  nor  of  Phut,  “ cursed  be  Canaan” — the  fourth  and  youngest 
son  of  Ham. 

Now  Canaan,  in  direct  contravention  of  the  will  of  God,  took 
possession  of  Palestine — the  land  destined  for  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham ; and  it  was  with  a foreknowledge  of  his  evil  deeds,  that  Noah 
was  permitted  to  curse  him.  Some  fifteen  centuries  after  this  event, 
the  Canaanites  were  ejected  from  Palestine,  slaughtered,  or  subju- 
gated by  the  hosts  of  Joshua;  who  politically  fulfilled  the  extinction 
of  a doomed  race,  and  took  possession  of  Abraham’s  inheritance.  No 
doubt  need  be  entertained  that  Canaan  was  accursed — and  deservedly 
so,  when  we  consider  the  abominations  of  the  heathen  rites  origin- 
ated and  practiced  by  his  descendants — their  human  sacrifices- 
their  altars  reeking  with  the  blood  of  men  : yet,  even  in  the  moral 
wilderness  of  Canaan  we  meet  with  oases  ; for — Genesis  xiv.,  18 — 
Melchisedek,  king  of  Salem,  “ was  a priest  of  the  most  high  God” — 
a proof,  that,  in  Abraham’s  day,  the  worst  Gentile  nation  had  one 
man  who  followed  the  pure  primeval  creed  ; nor  did  the  Almighty 
disregard  the  expostulating  prayer  of  Abimelech,  king  of  Gerar — • 
Gen.  xx.,  4 — “ Lord,  wilt  thou  slay  also  a righteous  nation  ?” 

Other  exceptions  to  the  curse  on  Canaan  and  his  descendants,  are 
producible  ; but,  as  a general  rule,  the  Phoenicians  and  their  Car- 
thaginian colony,  with  other  Canaanites,  were,  in  their  paganism, 
atrociously  inhuman. 

Canaan,  however,  was  not  physically  changed  in  consequence  of 
the  curse.  He  ever  remained  a while  man,  as  did,  and  do,  all  his 
many  descendants.  No  scriptural  production  can  be  found,  that 
would  support  an  hypothesis  so  absurd,  as  that,  in  consequence  of  the 
curse,  Canaan  was  transmuted  into  a negro,  or  into  any,  the  very 
slightest  affinities  to  the  varied  races  we  now  designate  as  Africans ; 
while  equally  untenable  is  that  opinion  which  would,  in  consequence 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


4i 


of  their  undeniable  inferiority  of  race,  account  the  Negroes  to  be 
by  Providence  accursed. 

What  the  Canaanites  were,  prior  to  B.  C.  1500,  I shall  illustrate  in 
my  lectures  by  the  portrait  of  a Canaanite  (coexistent  with  every 
variety  of  Negro,  also  illustrated,)  from  the  Theban  sculptures,  cut 
about  the  period  of  the  Jewish  Exodus ; over  whose  head  is  read 
in  hieroglyphics,  aa/Wv  x # “ Kanana,  barbarian 

country;”  given  I among  proper  names 

in  the  preceding  Sk&rfS  chapter ; and,  it  is 

well  worthy  of  remark,  that  on  three  different  occasions  (two  of 
them  recorded  prior  to  the  Exode,  and  one  while  the  Jews  were 
probably  at  Mount  Sinai,)  we  find  the  Pharaonic  armies  conquering 
places  in  Canaan — “ Kanana This  is  perfectly  confirmatory  of 
the  chronological  arrangement  herein  followed;  because,  as  Joshua 
overthrew  the  land  of  Canaan  subsequently  to  these  Egyptian  victo- 
ries, it  is  quite  natural  that,  during  events  preceding  Joshua,  “ the 
Canaanite  should  still  be  in  the  land”  as  he  was  in  the  days  of  Abra- 
ham. In  later  times,  among  the  hieroglyphical  records  of  Egyptian 
conquests  in  Palestine,  Kanana  disappears,  10  be  replaced  by  the 
“King  of  Judah.” 

If  then  with  the  curse  branded  on  Canaan,  and  on  his  whole  pos- 
terity, the  Almighty  did  not  see  fit  to  change  his  skin,  his  hair,  bones, 
or  any  portion  of  his  physical  structure,  how  unjust,  how  baseless  is 
that  theory  (unsupported  by  a line  in  Scripture,  and  in  diametrical 
opposition  to  monumental  and  historical  testimony,)  which  would 
make  Canaan’s  immediate  progenitor,  Ham,  the  father  of  the  Ne- 
groes! or  his  apparently  blameless  brother,  Mizraim,  an  Ethiopian  ! 

Ham  , indeed,  is  omitted  after  the  prophetic  execration  of  Canaan. 
And,  while  Shem  is  peculiarly  blessed,  and  Japheth  is  told  that  “ God 
shall  enlarge”  him,  and  that  he  shall  dwell  (as  he  does)  “ in  the  tents 
of  Shem,”  neither  Ham,  nor  his  other  three  sons,  Cush,  Mizraim  and 
Phut,  are  doomed  to  be  fellow-seruants  with  the  “servant  of  servants,” 
Canaan. 

In  fact,  Ham  and  his  three  sons  partook  of  all  earthly  blessings ; 
and  whether  he  accompanied  Mizraim  into  Egypt  or  not,  we  find  the 
earliest  Egyptian  records  (written  not  many  centuries  after  his  death,) 
give  his  name  to  the  Valley  of  the  Nile — that  in  Psalm  Ixxviii.,  51, 
and  elsewhere,  Egypt  is  designated  as  “ the  tabernacles  of  Ham” — 
and  that  a variety  of  other  testimony  associates  Ham  with  the  rich- 
est, most  fertile,  and  most  ancient  country  of  the  earth ; and  makes 
him  the  progenitor  of  the  most  civilized  and  powerful  nation  of  an- 
tiquity. 

It  would  not  be  at  all  consistent  with  the  authority  that  enjoins  on 
the  Hebrews  the  observance  of  the  following  Law,  to  suppose  any 
curse  hung  over  Ham  or  his  descendants,  until,  in  long  posterior  times, 
these  had  morally  fallen  from  the  character  of  their  high-caste  an- 
cestry. No  nations  but  Egypt  and  Edom  enjoyed  this  privilege. 

Deut.  xxiii.,  7,  8 — “ Thou  shalt  not  abhor  an  Edomite,  for  he  is 
thy  brother  : thou  shalt  not  abhor  an  Egyptian,  because  thou  wast  a 
stranger  in  his  land.  The  children  that  are  begotten  of  them  shall 
enter  into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  in  their  third  generation.” 

It  is  a curious  philological  coincidence,  that  in  Egyptian  hieroglyph- 
ics, as  in  Coptic,  the  word  for  stranger  was  “ shemmo.”  The  Is- 
raelite was  a stranger  in  Egypt,  and  a descendant  of  Shem — he  was 
therefore  shemmo.* 

In  one  word,  from  the  earliest  times,  the  children  of  Ham,  or  Egyp- 
tians, and  the  children  of  Shem,  or  Israelites,  bore  each  other  no  he- 
reditary ill-will.  Why  should  they,  being  of  the  same  Caucasian 
stock,  the  descendants  of  twin  brothers  7 This  constant  attachment 
to  Egypt,  on  the  part  of  the  Hebrews,  continued  ever  intact,  and 
even  excited  the  Divine  anger ; while,  finally,  no  curse  did  or  could 
separate  Ham  from  the  temporal  blessings  allotted  to  his  family,  or 
from  union  spiritually  with  his  twin  brother  Shem  ; because  a portion 
of  Ham’s  blood  flowed  in  the  line  of  the  promised  seed,  through  Ra- 
hab  of  Jericho,  a Canaanitish  woman,  who  married  Salmon,  and  be- 
came the  mother  of  Boaz,  the  grandfather  of  Jesse,  the  father  of  David. 

According  to  the  Bible,  therefore,  Egypt  was  colonized  by  Ham’s 
children  ; and  it  has  been  shown,  that,  in  hieroglyphics,  the  ancient 
name  of  that  country  was  “ the  land  of  Ham.”  It  has  likewise 
been  seen  how  in  Hebrew,  in  Arabic,  and  in  Coptic,  Ham  means 
dark,  swarthy  in  color ; and  this  application  of  the  name  to  Egypt 
proceeds  from  the  dark-colored  loam,  or  Nilotic  alluvium,  of  its  pro. 
lific  soil ; for  Plutarch  tells  us,  that  “ Egypt  was  called  Chemmia 
from  the  blackness  of  its  soil.”  As  the  root  of  Chemmia  is  the  Se- 
mitic word  Ham,  which  only  means  dark,  it  is  an  error  of  Plutarch 
to  render  it  black.  The  ancient  city  of  Panopolis,  in  the  Thebaid, ' 
was  termed  Kemmis  by  Greek  writers,  as  its  native  Egyptian  name  ; 
and  its  site  still  preserves  its  ancient  designation  in  the  modern 
E’khmim. 

In  the  mythological  system  of  the  Egyptians,  Khem  was  a deity 
of  the  first  order,  representing,  as  an  attribute  of  the  Almighty,  the 
generative  principle  extending  over  procreation  in  the  animal  and 
vegetable  world — a doctrine  singularly  in  accordance  with  the  mys- 
tic attributes  of  the  father  of  the  Egyptians— Ham,  the  son  of  Noah 


* A name  preserved  still  in  Syria,  the  land  of  Shem,  which  is  called  Shim  by  Semitic 
nations— the  city  of  Damascus  is  still  called— es-SImm. 


— and  possibly  connected,  in  some  mysterious  manner,  with  his 
memory  and  their  origin. 

Amun-KHEM. 

On  the  altar  behind  him 
are  two  trees.  Khem  is  in 
some  way  connected  with 
the  tree,  a sycamore,  still  in- 
digenous to  Egypt — and  in 
hieroglyphical  legends  Egypt 
is  often  termed  “ the  land  of 
the  sycamore.” 

The  far-famed  god  Osiris, 
among  his  various  attribu- 
tions (as  the  Nile,  or  the 
“Judge  of  Amend,”  the  fu- 
ture state,)  is  mystically  a 
form  of  Khem,  who  corres- 
ponds also  to  the  Hindoo 
Siva,  and  from  whom  the 
Greeks  derived  their  Pluto. 

Mizraim  (in  Hebrew,  also 
Mitzar)  son  of  Ham,  came 
from  Asia  into  Egypt,  and 
colonized  that  luxurious  val- 
ley. Although,  in  hiero- 
glyphics, this  name  has  not 
been  found,  we  have  scriptu- 
ral authority  in  abundance, 
that  the  country  was  called 
Mizraim,  and  Mitzar,  by  the 

ughout  the  east,  Egypt  and 

Cairo  are  universally  known  by  the  cognate  appellation  of  Muss’r. 

According  to  Sanconiathon,  Misor  (who  may  be  Mizraim  ?)  was 
the  ancestor  of  Taautus — our  Thoth — Hermes-trismegistus — who 
invented  the  writing  of  the  first  letters:  so  that  Phoenician  annals 
agreed  with  Egyptian,  in  attributing  letters  to  the  same  personage  ; 
while  it  coincides  with  our  view  of  scriptural  chronology,  and  the 
Asiatic  origin  of  the  Egyptians,  that,  if  by  Misor,  Sanconiathon 
meant  Mizraim,  that  Thoth — Hermes  should  be  bis  descendant. 

Egypt  was  called  Mizraim  by  the  Hebrews — and  the  little  “ Sey- 
dleh,”  or  Desert-water-course,  of  Rhinocolura,  near  El-Areesh  on  the 
isthmus  of  Suez,  as  the  boundary  line  between  Egypt  and  Palestine, 
was  termed  “ Nachal-Mizraim,”  the  torrent  of  Egypt.  It  never 
means  the  Nile,  which,  in  Hebrew,  is  “ Jear”  or  “ Jeor.” 

The  roots  of  the  word  Mizraim  are,  by  Hebraical  philologists, 
shown  to  be  Tzur — a rock,  a narrow  place — whence  Matzur,  a for- 
tress. Mizraim  is  the  dual  number — signifying  “ the  two  rocks” — 
“ the  two  fortresses” — “ the  two  barriers.”  This  may  be  explained 
either  by  the  peculiar  topographical  formation  of  the  valley  itself, 
on  each  side  of  which  a rock,  the  Lybian  and  the  Eastern  hills, con. 
fines  the  river  Nile ; or  by  regarding  these  two  chains,  as  two  natu- 
ral fortresses,  acting  as  barriers  to  the  nomads  of  the  eastern  deser, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  western  on  the  other.  It  may  likewise 
apply  to  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,  designated  in  hieroglyphics  as 
“ the  two  regions.” 

As  we  are  on  comparisons  of  early  biblical  nomenclatures  and 
hieroglyphical  territorial  appellatives,  I will  indicate  a curious  con- 
firmation of  our  theory  in  another  son  of  Ham,  who  appears  to  have 
crossed  through  Egypt,  and  settled  in  Lybia  to  the  west.^  Lybia  was 
termed  by  the  Egyptians,  prior  to  2000  B.  C..  “The 
country  of  the  nine  bows” — a designation  extremely 
ZZ  appropriate  to  the  wild  nomads  of  the  “ Beladed-dje- 

reed”  (as  the  Arab  writers  designate  “ Fezzan”)  the 

countries  of  the  date-palm  : for  Lybian  archers  and 
Numidian  cavalry  are  celebrated  in  history  ; nor  have  the  “ Moghiir- 
ba”  Arabs,  under  Abd-el-K&der,  lost  caste  in  military  prowess.  1 he 
number  nine  may  be  vague,  as  representative  of  “ a great  many  ;” 
or  specific,  as  to  the  tribes  of  Lybia  (!) 

Now  phonetically,  these  characters  readinCoptic,  Niphaiat;  whence 
cutting  off  7ii,  the  plural,  and  suppressing  the  vowels,  we  obtain 
Ph-t,  or  Phut,  as  the  name  whereby  the  children  of  Phut  (son  o( 
Ham)  are  known  in  history  ! A bow,  in  Coptic,  is  likewise  Phet. 
In  Jeremiah,  Cush  and  Phut  represent  Africa.  I can  find  no  hiero- 
glyphical instance,  that  the  Phut  are  termed  barbarians,  which  would 
be  natural,  if  they  be  the  descendants  of  Mizraim’s  brother;  but  I 


am  not  positive  on  this  head. 

To  avoid  misconception,  it  behoves  me  to  remark,  that  the  hiero 
glyphical  name  for  Negroes,  which  is  Kush,  has  no  apparent  relation 
to  Cush,  the  son  of  Ham.  I shall  expound,  in  my  lectures,  why 
they  are  distinct,  and  how  they  have  been  confounded.  The  Cusn 
of  the  Hebrews,  as  well  as  the  Ethiopia,  of  our  version,  and  of 
Greek  writers,  is  Antediluvian  in  date  ; and  is  applied,  with  marvel- 
lous indistinctness,  to  Egypt,  Arabia  Petraea,  Nubia,  Nigritia,  Abys 
sinia,  Arabia  Proper,  Persia,  Chusistan,  Scythia,  Bactria,  Assyria, 
India,  and  almost  to  every  country  of  the  Eastern-African,  and  Asi- 


42 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


ntic  Continents.  In  hieroglyphics,  Kush  means  exclusively  African 
races  in  general,  and  negroes  in  particular;  as 


“ Kush,  barbarian  country,  perverse  race.” 


inscribed  over  Negro  captives. 

On  the  geographical  distribution  of  the  seven  sons  of  Mizraim, 
the  liieroglyphical  names  of  Egyptian  localities  have  as  yet  shed  no 
light.  Biblical  commentators  are  not  agreed,  as  to  the  precise  terri. 
tories  of  the  Ludim,  and  the  Lehabim  ; but  the  latter  are  placed  in 
Lybia  westward  of  Lower  Egypt— possibly  in  the  Cyrenaica  ; and 
the  former  are  conjectured  to  have  colonized  the  province  of  Mari- 
otis.  The  Anamim  are  supposed  to  have  occupied  the  Oases.  The 
Naphtuhim  possessed  the  sea-coast  of  the  Delta  ; and  were  nautical 
in  their  habits,  if  it  be  fair  to  derive  the  Greek  ravdija  (pronounced 
NAphthys)  and  the  Arabic  “ Nobtee,” — sailor,  from  the  Hebrew  root. 

As  from  the  Casluhim  proceeded  the  Philistim,  they  have  been 
placed,  by  some,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Nile,  near  Lake  Menza- 
leh.  To  the  Pathrusim  has  been  assigned  the  Thebaid. 

In  hieroglyphics,  the  Lotus  typified  Upper,  and  the  Papyrus,  Lower 
Egypt. 

In  Hebrew,  the  name  of  Upper  Egypt  was  Pthrus,  whence  our 
Pathros,  from  the  root  PTHR — “ to  interpret  dreams.”  Now  Up- 
per Egypt,  or  the  Thebaid,  was  the  birth-place  of  mystic  science, 
and  of  initiation  in  occult  mysteries — symbolized  by  the  Lotus,  typi- 
cal of  “celestial  light,”  as  well  as  of  the  Thebaid,  where  science 
originated.  Again,  in  Hebrew,  Lower  Egypt  was  called  Mtsur — 
Egypt  and  Cairo  are  now  termed  Mussr — while  the  papyrus  plant 
furnished  food  to  man,  and  may  in  consequence  have  indicated 
“ the  region  of  primitive  agriculture  such  as  must  have  been  that 
portion  of  the  Nilotic  valley  to  its  first  settlers.  We  have  the  au- 
thority of  Herodotus,  that  the  papyrus  was  the  first  food,  the  primi- 
tive aliment  of  the  Egyptians;  as  likewise  of  Horus-Apollo,  that 
the  papyrus  meant,  in  hieroglyphics,  “ the  first  nutriment  of  man,” 
and  “ the  ancient  origin  of  things.”  Now  the  papyrus  grew  only  in 
Lower  Egypt ; was  the  cheapest  food  of  its  former  population,  and 
agriculture,  with  primitive  social  organization,  began  in  Lower  Egypt. 

Thus  does  Hebrew  confirm  the  symbols  of  the  Egyptians.  Be- 
sides tracing  in  the  word  Mizraim,  and  explaining  it  by  the  transla- 
tion of  “ the  two  fortresses,”  we  reach  other  curious  coincidences. 
The  singular  number  of  Misraim,  is  Mlzur — embracing  two  roots, 
mtse,  meaning  “ unleavened  bread  ;”  and  tsrr,  signifying  “ a bun- 
dle,” or  “ a roll  of  papyrus,”  as  used  by  scribes,  symboiizing  the 
first  food,  and  the  ancient  origin  of  things. 

Now,  unleavened  bread — mtse — existed  in  the  days  of  Moses, 
Exodus  xxii.  8,  and  other  verses — no  less  than  leavened  bread,  xiii. 
3,  7.  The  Jews  were  an  Arabian,  and  essentially  a pastoral  people, 
before  they  settled  in  Canaan.  Unleavened  bread  was  the  primitive 
food  of  man,  in  the  early  stages  of  civilization,  and  before  he  learned 
to  leaven  it.  It  was  adopted  by  the  Jews,  on  their  departure 
across  the  desert  from  Goshen,  as  the  simplest  mode  of  preparing 
bread  in  the  wilderness;  and  has  ever  been  the  daily  food  of  the 
Arabian  nomad,  the  present  Bddawee,  who  prepares  a cake  of  flour 
and  water,  bakes  it  with  dried  camel’s  dung,  and  calls  it  “ Gobra- 
8a.”  The  Hebrew  lawgiver,  when  the  Almighty  ordained  the  Pass- 
over,  adopted  the  unleavened  cake  for  his  nomadic  tribe.  The 
agricultural  and  civic  institutions  of  the  Egyptians,  had  previously 
induced  them  to  adopt  as  a symbol  of  civilization,  (in  contradistinc- 
tion to  the  coarse  unfermented  aliment  of  the  nomad,)  the  leavened 
bread,  expressed  in  hieroglyphics  by  /T\  the  consecrated  loaf ; 
identical  in  shape  with  the  consecrated  cake  of  the  Roman 

and  Eastern  Churches  ; and  preserved,  among  us,  in  the  hot. 

cross-buns,  sold  on  Good-Fridays,  and  on  the  Continent  during 
other  festivals.  Thus  a clear  distinction  was  permanently  estab- 
lished between  Egyptian  and  Hebrew  rites,  between  leavened  and 
unleavened  bread. 

The  location  of  the  Caphtorim  is  uncertain.  It  has  been  conjec- 
tured that  they  were  placed  in  the  Delta,  or  near  Pelusium,  or  in 
Crete,  or  in  Western  Palestine- 

Caphtor,  has  been  ingeniously  traced  to  Ai-Caphtor,  or  covered 
land — possibly  referring  to  the  annual  covering  of  Egypt  by  the  wa- 
ters of  the  Nilotic  inundation.  Hence,  by  elision,  we  obtain  Ai- 
capht,  or  Ai-copht;  and,  by  transmution  with  Greek,  “ AIyiirr”-o{, 
Egypt;  which  may  derive  some  confirmation  from  the  Arabic,  “Gypt” 
or  “ Gupt,”  or  “ Qooft,”  in  relation  to  our  word  Copt,  the  present  na- 
tive Christian  population  of  that  country.  It  is  curious,  that  in  San- 
scrit, Egypt  is  termed  Gupta.shan,  covered  land  wherein  we  trace 
the  same  root  Gvpt ; no  less  than  Cardama.shan,  meaning  mud 
and.  In  Greek,  Aigyptos,  often  means  the  Nile  itself. 


The  ancient  classical  name,  Aeria,  which  is  traceable  to  dfip,  de. 
noting  obscurity  and  darkness,  in  reference  to  the  color  of  Egyptian 
alluvium  (as  in  Scripture,  “ the  darkness  of  Egypt”)  has  not  been 
found  in  hieroglyphics  ; but  I tnink  it  derivable  Aom  the  roots  of  Ra, 
Ouro,  Aur;  explained  in  the  previous  chapter,  as  referring  to  Phre, 
the  sun,  the  solar  deity  of  Egypt. 

Much  of  the  above,  in  regard  to  the  original  geographical  distri- 
bution of  the  sons  of  Mizraim,  is  problematical.  I should  not  have 
alluded  to  the  children  of  Mizram,  were  it  not  essential  to  prove  by 
negatives  (when  the  absolute  silence  of  Scripture  leaves  no  better 
argument,)  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Bible,  which  compels  us  to 
carry  the  first  settlers  in  Egypt  very  far  up  the  Nile  : but,  on  the  con 
trary,  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  best  biblical  commentators,  only  one 
son  of  Mizraim  (head  of  the  Pathrusim)  is  supposed  to  have  ascended 
the  river  as  far  as  the  Thebaid  ; while  all  the  other  brethren  set- 
tled in  Lower  Egypt,  Lower  Lybia,  the  Delta,  and  the  land  of  Go- 
shen toward  Palestine. 

There  is  then  no  biblical  ground  for  supposing  that  Ham’s  imme- 
diate family  ascended  the  banks  of  the  Nile,  even  as  far  as  the  first 
Cataract ; and  this  is  but  reasonable,  when  we  reflect,  that  the  mid- 
dle and  the  lower  provinces  offered  inducements  to  agricultural  tribes, 
incomparably  superior  to  any  that  could  be  found  above  the  The- 
baid, in  Nubia,  or  in  Ethiopia,  as  far  as  Nigritia  in  the  15th  parallel 
of  latitude.  There  is  every  scriptural  reason  to  suppose  Lower 
Egypt  the  territory  first  colonized  by  the  family  of  Ham,  on  their  pri- 
meval migration  from  Assyria  to  the  Nilotic  valley,  which  will  be 
found  in  strict  accordance  with  monumental  evidence. 

It  has  been  shown,  that  there  was  no  curse  on  Ham,  or  on  Miz- 
raim. We  know,  that  the  curse  on  Canaan  affected  him  morally, 
and  not  physically.  We  have  seen,  that  Shent,  Ham  and  Japheth, 
were  of  one  blood  as  brothers.  We  have  learned  that  Shem  and 
Ham  were  twin  brothers.  We  know,  that  Shem,  the  parent  of  Sem- 
itic nations,  and  Japheth,  the  parent  of  Circassian  tribes,  were 
Caucasians.  It  follows  therefore,  that  Ham  was  a Caucasian  also, 
and  so  were  all  his  children,  and  Mizraim  in  particular,  when  hn> 
entered  Egypt. 

It  is  our  part  now  to  prove,  that  not  time,  nor  circumstance,  nor 
climate,  effected  any  palpable  change,  or  physical  alteration,  in  their 
progeny;  and  that  Ham’s  lineal  descendants,  the  Egyptians,  were  all 
pure  blooded  Caucasians,  from  the  earliest  to  the  latest  Pharaonic 
epoch — modified  in  the  Upper  Nilotic  provinces  by  the  admixture  of 
exotic  Austro-Egyptian  (that  is,  as  Dr.  Morton  explains,  by  com- 
pound Semitico-Hindoo  and  equally  Caucasian)  blood ; and  this  was 
strictly  the  fact,  except  in  incidental  and  individual  intermixture  with 
the  African  races  of  Berbers  and  Negroes  in  those  provinces  to  Ethi- 
opia adjacent.  This  latter  commingling,  however,  appears  to  have 
but  partially  affected  the  gross  of  Egyptian  population  of  Asiatic  ori 
gin  ; and  to  have  been  no  more  visible,  (probably  still  less  so)  among 
the  Pharaonic  Egypto-Caucasian  family,  than  it  is  now  discern- 
ible among  the  Felldhs,  of  the  lower  and  middle  provinces  of  the 
present  day. 

On  the  dubious  authority  of  the  Greeks,  and  their  pupils  the  Ro- 
mans, it  has  been  and  is  still  asserted,  that  at  the  early  period  of 
which  we  are  treating — that  of  primeval  migrations — Lower  Egypt 
was  an  “uninhabitable  marsh;”  and,  therefore,  that  Upper  Egypt 
must  have  been  settled  first.  Nay,  Herodotus  and  Diodorus  main- 
tain, that  Ethiopia,  above  the  cataracts,  was  the  cradle  of  the  ancient 
Egyptians. 

Bryant,  who,  by  the  way,  frequently  breathes  “ the  word  of  promise 
to  the  ear,  and  breaks  it  to  the  hope,”  has  judiciously  remarked,  that 
“ among  many  learned  men,  who  have  betaken  themselves  to  these 
researches,  I have  hardly  met  with  one  that  has  duly  considered  the 
situation,  distance,  and  natural  history  of  the  places  about  which  they 
treat and,  on  applying  his  observation  to  the  points  at  issue,  it  will 
be  found  wonderfully  pertinent. 

From  the  poetic  era  of  Homer,  down  to  the  sentimentalism  of  the 
present  age,  it  has  been  fashionable,  to  take  much  for  granted  on 
Egyptian  subjects,  of  which  a sober  and  practical  investigation  of  the 
facts  would  at  once  have  exposed  the  fallacy.  These  chapters  and 
my  future  lectures  are  specially  directed  to  the  removal  of  the  more 
prominent  instances  of  ancient  or  modern  misconception.  My  opin- 
ions are  the  result  of  some  study,  and  comparison  of  the  most  distin- 
guished authorities.  I have  had  opportunities  of  which  I have  gladly 
availed  myself,  for  hearing  many  of  these  questions  canvassed  in  Egypt, 
by  some  of  the  most  critical  observers  of  the  day,  often  standing  on  the 
very  spots  under  discussion.  Much  have  I verified  in  personal  trav- 
els, and  through  favorite  occupations,  during  a sojourn  prolonged  in 
that  country  for  the  greater  part  of  twenty-three  years.  When, 
therefore,  I make  a confident  assertion,  it  isnotdone  rashly,  nor  with 
some  acquaintance  with  the  matter,  nor  without  abundance  of  evi- 
dence in  reserve  for  its  support. 

Among  the  illusions  consecrated  by  the  halo  of  ages,  there  is  none 
so  singular,  and  that  strikes  any  one  who  has  traversed  the  Nomes 
or  Provinces  of  Egypt,  in  their  length  and  breadth,  as  more  unac- 
countable and  inconceivable  with  the  array  of  natural  facts  presented 
to  hint,  than  the  statement,  that  the  Delta  of  Egypt  is  of  recent  date  ; 
or  otherwise,  that  its  formation  has  taken  place  within  any  period,  to 
which  even  tradition  may  carry  us.  To  adopt  the  language  of  Sir 
J.  G.  Wilkinson,  whose  critical  investigation  of  every  subject  and 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


locality  of  that  country  during  some  twelve  years  of  actual  sojourn, 
has  led  him  to  the  most  accurate  conclusions,  “ we  are  led  to  the 
necessity  of  allowing  an  immeasurable  time  for  the  total  formation  of 
that  space,  which  to  judge  from  the  very  little  accumulation  of  its 
soil,  and  the  small  distance  it  has  encroached  on  the  sea,  since  the 
erection  of  the  ancient  cities  within  it,  would  require  ages,  and  throw 
back  its  origin  far  beyond  the  deluge,  or  even  the  Mosaic  era  of  the 
Creation.” 

So  thoroughly,  indeed,  has  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson  demonstrated  this , 
fact,  that,  were  it  desirable  to  enter  into  details,  the  most  convincing 
method  would  be  to  extract  from  pages  5 to  11  of  his  first,  and  from 
pages  105  to  121  of  his  fourth  volume,  of  “ Manners  and  Customs 
of  the  Ancient  Egyptians.”  But,  since  the  curious  can  readily  peruse 
this  eminent  work  for  themselves,  I perform  an  agreeable  duty  in 
referring  to  his  statement,  adding  at  the  same  time  an  expression  of 
my  admiration  of  its  accuracy.  The  following  axioms  will  then  be 
arrived  at : 

1st.  That  the  Delta  is  as  old  as  the  flood,  and  was  as  inhabitable 
when  Ham’s  children  entered  Egypt,  as  it  is  in  those  parts  which 
are  peopled  at  the  present  hour.  In  fact,  owing  to  the  constant  rise 
of  the  bed  of  the  river  being  more  rapid  than  that  of  the  soil  on  its 
banks,  the  Delta  and  Lower  Egypt  arc  probably  more  marshy  now, 
than  at  any  previous  period. 

2nd.  That,  to  the  south  of  the  Delta,  the  perpendicular  rise  of  the 
bed  of  the  Nile  extends  the  inundation  and  alluvial  deposit  much 
farther,  in  a horizontal  and  lateral  direction,  East  and  West,  at  the 
present  day,  than  was  the  case  at  any  anterior  period — that  this  pro. 
cess  has  always  been  in  operation — and  that  there  is  now  a wider 
extent  of  superficies  overflowed  and  irrigated  by  the  inundation  than 
at  any  former  time. 

3d.  That  the  exaggerated  andridiculous  stories,  about  the  encroach- 
ment of  sand  on  the  arable  soil  of  Egypt,  deserve  no  attention;  for,  on 
the  contrary,  whatever  injury  the  sand  may  have  here  and  there  effected 
(that  is,  at  Rosetta,  Beni-saltime,  the  pyramids,  Behnesa,  and  Aboo- 
eimbel)  the  number  of  square  miles  of  inundated  alluvium  has  always 
been,  and  will  ever  be,  on  the  increase, so  long  as  similar  causes  operate 
to  produce  similar  effects. 

4th.  That  the  celebrated  Oases,  to  the  westward  of  Egypt,  are  not 
"fertile  spots  in  the  midst  of  a sandy  plain;”  but  depressions  in  the 
lofty  table-land  of  Africa,  where,  in  the  absence  of  the  superincum- 
bent limestone  strata,  the  water  has  the  power  of  rising  to  the  surface. 

5th.  That  the  desert  is  not  a dreary  plain  of  sand,  which  has  over- 
whelmed a once  fertile  country,  whose  only  vestiges  are  the  “iso- 
lated gardens  of  the  Oases,”  but  a high  table-land  of  limestone,  sand- 
stone, granite  and  other  rocks,  according  to  locality;  broken  and  in- 
terrupted by  alternate  elevations  and  depressions:  where,  when  not 
on  the  top  of  the  table-rock  itself,  you  travel  in  ravines,  defiles,  and 
spaces,  on  hard  gravel,  upon  which  your  tread  often  leaves  no  trail ; 
and  where  frequently  you  are  truly  delighted,  as  the  shades  of  even- 
ing warn  you  to  search  for  a bivouack,  if  you  can  find  as  much  sand 
as  will  make  under  your  carpet  a Bddawee’s  mattress.  The  Isthmus 
of  Suez,  and  those  already-named  places,  which  the  casual  Anglo- 
Indian  hurries  over  in  his  explorative  transit,  are  exceptions  to  the 
above  rule,  for  very  simple  reasons. 

The  fanciful  accounts  of  caravans’  being  overwhelmed  by  sands 
in  the  desert,  would  be  too  puerile  to  deserve  attention,  did  not  those 
paragons  of  observers,  Herodotus  and  Strabo,  Paul  Lucas  and  Mr. 
St.  John  (who  confine  their  knowledge  to  the  half-mile  strip  of  sand 
between  the  cultivated  soil  and  the  desert,  or  “Hdgar,”  stone)  per- 
petuate the  delusion.  Strabo,  like  some  later  travellers,  must  have 
braved  great  dangers  during  his  voyage  1 and,  even  now,  we  read 
about  wonderful  escapes  and  miraculous  preservations  from  a Si- 
mod  m ! The  army  of  Cambyses  is  said  to  have  been  swallowed  up 
by  waves  of  sand.  It  would  be  a phenomenon  in  physics  to  see  one 
of  such  waves.  Others,  besides  the  writer,  who  are  still  alive  to  tell 
the  tale,  have  been  out  in  the  wilderness  during  the  worst  Si- 
mooms that  ever  blew,  and  found  them  disagreeable  enough  ; but, 
having  abundance  of  water  at  hand,  they  sat  down  under  the  lee  of 
anything  they  could  find — (camels  kneeling  down  afford  as  much 
shelter  as  ri  necessary)  and,  without  a shadow  of  apprehension,  suf- 
fered the  blast  to  blow  over  with  its  cloud,  not  of  sand,  but  of  hot, 
impalpable,  though  penetrating  dust. 

No  aerial  force  having  the  power  of  raising  waves  of  sand,  there 
never  was,  during  a Simoom  or  Khdmeseen,  the  slightest  danger 
from  anv  motion  ot  the  sands  of  the  desert.  If  a man,  during  these 
hot  winds,  be  remote  from  pools  or  springs,  and  the  skins  which  con- 
tain water  for  his  beverage  break,  or  are  dried  up,  then  he  will  per- 
ish from  thirst,  his  drought  being  aggravated  by  the  parching  heat  ot 
a lurid  atmosphere.  Consequently,  where  caravans  have  perished  in 
the  desert,  from  causes  not  originating  in  man  himself,  they  have 
died,  after  losing  their  way,  from  hunger  and  thirst;  as  did  the  army 
of  Cambyses,  after  encountering  the  arrows  of  the  “ nine  bows”  of 
Lybia.  As  the  animals  fall,  the  light  particles  of  dust  or  fine  sand- 
drift  accumulate  with  the  obstruction,  and  may  sometimes  bury  the 
carcass ; but  this  is  so  rare,  that,  when  occasionally  in  journeying 
over  the  desert,  you  pass  the  skeleton  of  a camel,  you  often  regret, 
that  there  was  not  sand  enough  to  screen  the  unpleasing  relic  from 
your  view. 

The  desert,  the  sand,  the  Simoom,  the  Khtimeseen,  with  all  their 


fabulous  horrors,  alarm  not  the  Arab  who  has  plenty  of  water:  and 
to  a hale  European,  are  infinitely  more  appalling  in  a book  of 
travels,  than  when  encountering  the  acme  of  their  disagreeables  m the 
Sahara  itself.  To  those  who  love  clear  skies,  pure  air,  often  beau, 
tiful,  ever  romantic  scenery,  there  is  a charm  in  desert- life,  that  can 
be  felt,  but  not  described. 

Finally,  there  is  no  danger  in  the  deseit  at  any  time,  (save  now 
and  then,  from  man,  who,  even  there  is  much  belied)  provided  the 
wayfarer  has  food  and  water  (without  which  he  could  not  exist  in 
Eden,)  and,  as  for  the  dangers  of  a Simoom,  in  comparison  with  those 
of  a snow-storm  in  the  Highlands  of  Scotland,  among  the  Alpine 
crags  of  Switzerland,  or  on  the  northwestern  prairies  of  America, 
they  are  not  to  be  mentioned  in  the  same  breath. 

These  subjects  afford  ample  room  for  prolixity,  but  being  at  present 
irrelevant,  I apologize  for  the  digression.  Let  us  return  to  Lower 
Egypt,  the  pristine  seat  of  Ham’s  descendants. 

Positive  levels  demonstrate  to  us,  that  when  the  Delta  was  an  “arm 
of  the  sea,”  or  even  “an  uninhabitable  marsh,”  Asia  and  Africa  were 
separate  Continents,  and  the  Red  Sea  flowed  into  the  Mediterranean 
In  those  days  the  Mokattam  hills  behind  Cairo,  and  the  opposite  Ly- 
bian  chain,  whereon  now  stand  the  eternal  pyramids,  (if  those  hills 
were  then  in  existence)  stood  out,  into  the  sea,  bold  capes  and  prom, 
ontories.  The  nearest  points  of  either  Continent  would  have  been 
Gcbel  Attaka  on  the  African,  to  Gebel  Ein  Mbosa  on  the  Asiatic  side, 
at  the  present  apex  of  the  Red  Sea,  distant  from  each  other  about 
thirty  miles.  While,  on  each  Continent,  sterile  rocks  were  all,  that 
for  hundreds  of  miles,  were  out  of  the  water. 

The  same  geological  transitions  that  caused  the  recession  of  the 
waters,  and  upheaved  the  narrow  slip  which  now  connects  Africa 
with  Asia,  burst  asunder  the  basaltic  barriers  of  W&dee  Haifa,  rifted 
the  granite  portals  of  Syene,  opened  the  sandstone  gateways  of  Had- 
jar  Silsilis,  separated  the  limestone  ranges  of  the  eastern  and  western 
hills,  and  by  forming  the  Valley  of  the  Nile,  allowed  the  “sacred 
river”  to  pour  along  the  narrow  channel  its  ever  fertilizing  stream. 
Then  was  the  alluvial  soil  of  Upper  Egypt  begun,  and  eventually 
formed,  simultaneously  with  the  Delta — one  did  not  exist  without  the 
other  : and  until  the  alluvial  deposite  had  been  made,  there  was  no 
soil  throughout  the  land  of  Egypt,  or  in  Ethiopian  latitudes,  but  all 
was  hard  rock,  unfit  for  man’s  abode. 

The  periods  of  these  events  are  geological,  their  latest  epoch  is 
diluvian;  but  the  alluvium  had  to  be  formed,  before  man  could  inhabit 
the  “ land  of  the  Sycamore.” 

The  geology  of  the  Isthmus  of  Suez  and  of  the  adjacent  deserts, 
with  their  oyster  beds,  and  petrified  forests;  their  vitrified  rocks  of 
sandstone  upon  limestone,  and  their  porphyry  upheavings;  their  erratic 
blocks,  and  argillaceous  strata;  presents  a mass  of  conflicting  irregu- 
larities, from  the  dilemmas  of  which  it  would  require  the  analyzing 
hand  of  a Lyell  to  extricate  us ; but,  amid  the  chaos,  one  point  is 
certain,  which  is,  that  when  Ham’s  children  came  from  Asia  into 
Egypt,  their  journey  was  by  land  from  Assyria  through  Palestine,  and 
across  the  Suez  desert — that  they  found  Lower  Egyp  , and  the  Delta 
as  inhabitable  then,  and  as  suited  to  agriculture,  in  proportion  to  tho 
alluvium  then  existing  in  the  upper  country,  as  they  are  now — that  if 
the  Delta  had  little  soil,  there  was  then  still  less  above — and  that  all 
scriptural  commentators  agree  in  distributing  the  sons  of  Mizraim 
over  this  lower  tract ; whence,  as  population  increased,  their  progeny 
spread  themselves  in  suitable  directions,  according  to  circumstances 
by  us  unknown,  but  actuated  by  motives  probably  to  them  expedient. 

“ Dato  il  caso,  e non  concesso;”  let  us  for  a moment  suppose,  that 
Lower  Egypt,  on  the  immigration  of  Mizraim,  was  a marsh.  Let  us 
concede,  that  there  was  a macadamized  road  from  Palestine  to  the 
Mokattam  at  Cairo:  and  let  it  be,  fora  moment  allowed,  that  Miz- 
raim, his  wife  and  children  ascended  at  once  to  the  first  Cataract. 
Where  shall  we  place  them  ? where  shall  we  find  alluvial  soil  and 
vegetation,  in  a land  in  which  these  primary  principles  were  entirely 
wanting  ? that  is  ; for  all  pastoral,  and  still  more  for  agricultural  pur- 
poses? For  when  the  Delta  was  a marsh,  there  was  not  six  feet 
breadth  of  soil  above  Hadjar  Silsilis  ; but  all  was  barren  rock. 

However,  we  will  suppose  that  onward  they  plod  their  weary  way, 
(as  did  those  Cushites  1 who,  by  some  are  said  to  have  come  from 
Babel,  through  Asia,  across  Behring’s  Straits,  into  North  America, 
as  far  as  Mexico,  and  onward  to  Peru,)  taking  their  provisions  with 
them.  Mizraim  had  to  bring  from  Palestine  to  the  Mokattam,  a dis- 
tance of  at  least  300  miles,  sufficient  for  his  family  and  his  flocks,  and 
thence  to  convey  his  commissariat  CIO  miles  farther  to  Syene.  It 
being  useless  to  remain  amid  granite  rocks,  they  are  hence  carried 
onward  into  Nubia.  Now,  in  Lower  Nubia,  eve.n  at  the  present  day, 
there  is  not  soil  enough  to  support  its  sparse  and  frugal  population  of 
“ Barabera.”  Yet,  their  provisions  being  abundant  (probably  her- 
metically sealed,)  after  a march  of  220  miles  more  to  the  second  Cata 
ract,  and  not  discouraged  in  the  least,  by  the  howling  wilderness 
they  “go  ahead;”  and  after  a couple  of  hundred  miles,  thev  find  wha’ 
are  now  the  plains  of  Dongola,  but  which  were  then  rather  more 
rocky  than  alluvial.  “ Rebus  angustis  animosus”  &,c.,  Mizraim, 
nothing  daunted,  after  a march  of  200  miles  (for  he  had  to  follow  the 
river  to  obtain  water)  finally  reaches  the  far-famed  “ Isle  of  Meroc  in 
Ethiopia.”  We  will  suppose  this  spot  to  have  been  a terrestrial  para- 
dise at  that  time,  whatever  it  be  now,  and  it  is  about  as  fertile  as  Lower 
Nubia.  Here,  after  a weary  tramp  from  Palestine  of  above  1500 


44 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


miles  (performed  with  as  much  rapidity  as  the  children  and  flocks 
allowed,)  Mizraim  and  his  family  settle  and  here  they  multiply. 

As  Mizraim  and  his  children  were  all  Caucasians  at  first  start,  in 
order  to  change  their  skins  from  white  to  black,  their  hair  to  wool, 
and  to  alter  their  osteology,  “ through  the  effects  of  climate,”  time  at 
least  must  be  allowed.  Who  will  define  the  necessary  period  for 
these  radical  changes  ? Never  mind — we  grant  every  facility.  Let 
countless  generations  transpire.  Let  them  become  Negroes,  or  Ber- 
bers, in  race.  Let  them  reach  the  acme  of  civilization.  Let  them 
surpass  Dahomey ; outrival  Ashantee  ; become  as  intellectual  as 
Hottentots — as  philanthropical  as  Tuarieks — as  constructive  as  Tib- 
boos.  Let  them  build  the  pyramids  of  Meroe,  Gebel  Birkal,  and 
Noori — which  done,  let  them  come  down  the  Nile  again,  to  build 
the  pyramids  of  Memphis  and  cover  Egypt  with  stupendous  struc- 
tures ; a perfect,  and  essentially  a civilized  community  ; to  confirm 
Herodotus,  and  his  Egyptian  applications,  of  /j£\ayxpni;  sal  oi\6rpixci 
“ black  in  complexion,  and  wooly-haired”*  to  be  called  also  M:X«^ird- 
iav — “the  black-footed;”  or  more  appropriately,  “ the  long-heeled 
race.”  On  their  arrival  in  Lower  Egypt,  the  Delta,  of  course,  is  no 
longer  a marsh;  and  having  waited  for  its  formation,  they  cover  it 
with  cities. 

Let  them,  I repeat,  perform  all  of  these  impossibilities,  and  then 
they  are  no  longer  Africans  in  Egypt.  A miracle  (of  which  we  have 
no  record)  has  metamorphosed  them  again  into  Caucasians. 

It  does  seem  odd,  if  not  unnecessary,  to  make  the  Asiatic  and  Cau- 
casian Mizraimites  at  once  proceed  up  the  Nile,  1500  miles  to  Meroe; 
there  to  study  and  improve  and  sojourn,  until  the  wonderful  eftects 
of  climate  should  transmute  them  into  Africans  ; and  then,  after 
countless  generations,  to  lead  them  back  into  Egypt,  and  there  wit- 
ness their  transition  into  pure  white  men,  in  a climate  where  no 
Ethiopian  ever  changed  his  skin  ! 

And  we  must  make  all  these  changes  in  far  less  than  one  thousand 
years  : that  is,  we  start  with  Ham  and  Mizraim  as  Caucasians  ; we 
transport  them  from  Assyria  into  Ethiopia,  and  watch  their  transition 
into  Negroes,  or  Berbers,  by  the  effects  of  climate,  and  under  the 
vaguest  extent  of  time  : we  perfect  them  as  such,  and  doat  upon  the 
sable  or  dusky  philosophers,  who  are  to  instruct  Moses,  and  civilize 
the  Greeks.  We  then  bring  them  back  into  Egypt,  and  by  magic  as 
it  were,  transmute  these  Negroes  or  Berbers,  again  into  pure  white 
men,  or  Caucasians,  such  as  every  Egyptian  was.  We  must  accom- 
plish all  this  between  Mizraim  and  Abraham — in  a space  of  about 
100  years,  by  the  Hebrew  version;  of  about  500  by  the  Septuagint. 
On  Egyptian  monuments  (as  I shall  prove  by  facsimile  copies)  we 
find  the  Negro  and  the  Berber,  painted  prior  to  1500,  B.  C.,  as  per- 
fectly distinct  from  the  Egyptian  natives,  as  an  Anglo-Saxon  is  from 
a Chimpansee.  If  four  thousand  years  have  not  had  the  slightest 
effect  in  whitening  Negroes,  how  much  change  of  color  could  have 
been  accomplished  in  one-eighth  of  the  time  ? 

What  should  we  say,  if  such  a doctrine  were  maintained  in  defi- 
ance of  Scripture,  of  nature,  and  of  fact  ? We  should  disdain  to  regard 
such  nonsense  ; and  yet  such  is  precisely  the  course  we  must  pur- 
sue, if  Ham  be  the  father  of  the  Egyptians,  and  the  Egyptians  de- 
scended the  Nile  from  Ethiopia  into  Egypt.  Such  is  precisely  what 
must  have  occurred,  if  we  believe  Herodotus,  Diodorus,  and  their 
Roman  plagiarists  ; and  such  is,  in  fine,  the  analysis  of  the  Ethiopian 
origin  of  the  Egyptians,  if  we  pretend  to  believe  the  Bible.  I will 
cast  ethnography  to  the  winds ; I will  discard  chronology  as  a dream  ; 
but  even  then,  I confess  my  inability  to  comprehend,  or  to  accept, 
such  a tissue  of  absurdities,  if  not  profanations. 

However,  with  Genesis  for  our  guide  in  human  primeval  migra- 
tions, with  the  Septuagint  chronology  as  our  limit,  and  the  Delta  an 
inhabitable  province,  at  the  time  of  Mizraim’s  arrival  from  the  plain=’ 
of  Shinar  ; it  will  be  seen,  that  Egyptian  monumental  history  coin- 
cides— that,  where  Scripture  is  silent,  other  lights  are  now  obtain- 
able— and  that,  if  a blank  intervenes  between  Mizraim  and  Abra- 
ham’s visit,  the  Septuagint  gives  a period  of  about  550  years  : to  fill 
which,  we  have  a mass  of  materials.  Turn  now  to  Archbishop 
Usher’s  chronology,  and  take  note,  that  between  Mizraim  and  Abra- 
ham, we  have  to  condense  all  the  events  into  a space  not  exceeding 
200  years  ; when  there  could  not  have  been  100,000  inhabitants  on  all 
the  earth,  according  to  any  reasonable  statistical  calculation  ; where- 
as, if  Abraham’s  birth  be  placed  at  more  than  1000  years  after  the 
Flood,  a period  has  been  allowed  for  the  propagation  of  mankind, 
which,  at  least,  is  more  reasonable,  no  less  than  more  orthodox. 
However,  it  is  sufficient  for  me  to  acknowledge  Ham  and  Mizraim 
to  be  the  progenitors  of  the  Egyptians.  On  the  epoch  of  the  latter’s 
immigration,  I have  not  the  presumption  to  decide.  It  is  enough 
that  it  took  effect,  at  an  adequate  lapse  of  time  after  the  Deluge,  and 
yet  sufficiently  remote  from  Menes,  the  first  Pharaoh  of  Egypt,  to 
admit  all  relative  preparatory  events : and  as,  on  Egypt,  the  Bible 
is  silent  for  many  centuries,  we  may  legitimately  look  to  other  sources 
for  information. 

The  authority  of  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson,  on  the  antiquity  of  the 
Delta,  is  supported  by  that  of  all  scientific  gentlemen  of  present 
times  in  Egypt,  whose  occupations,  as  surveyors  and  engineers,  enable 
them  to  corroborate  this  view  by  mathematical  demonstration.  By 

* l give  the  generally  accepted  translation,  though  aware  that  it  will  bear  some  modi- 
fication, by  going  back  to  the  Greek  roots.  Melamoodon  probablv  refers  to  leet  black- 
ened by  the  Nilotic  alluvium. 


casual  observers,  like  the  writer  and  other  old  residents  whose  mi. 
gratory  and  sporting  habits  take  them  into  places  where  the  mere 
traveller  never  dreams  of  going,  this  doctrine  is  implicitly  believed, 
as  agreeing  with  all  their  personal  experience.  We  shall  have  occa- 
sion to  return  to  the  inundation  of  the  river,  and  its  prolific  alluvium  ; 
but,  at  present,  attention  is  expressly  solicited  to  the  following  asser- 
tion, viz : that  the  Delta  and  Lower  Egypt,  having  existed  almost  in 
their  present  physical  state,  since  the  remotest  limit  of  known  time, 
there  was  no  obstacle  of  an  aquatic  or  marshy  nature,  to  preclude 
the  immediate  settlement  of  the  first  immigrants  from  Asia,  in  any 
portion  thereof,  that  is  by  man  inhabitable  at  the  present  hour. 

Lower  Egypt  and  the  Delta,  the  western  province  of  Bohbyreh, 
and  the  “ land  of  Goshen” — now  the  Sharkeeyeh,  or  eastern  prov- 
ince— of  yore  the  Tamtic  and  Bubastite  nomes — containing  the  rich- 
est portions  of  the  alluvium,  and  blessed  by  the  finest  climate  of  the 
Valley,  would  present  to  any  new  colony,  agricultural  or  pastoral, 
inducements  to  sojourn  wathin  their  area,  superior  to  any  that  could 
be  met  with  after  passing  Middle  Egypt,  or  the  Heptanomide. 

As  from  the  Thebaid,  you  proceed  upward  along  the  Nile  about 
Hadjar  Silsilis,  the  features  of  the  country  on  either  bank  undergo  a 
change,  from  fertility  to  unfruitfulness,  from  alluvial  to  hard  rock, 
from  cultivation  to  sterility : nor  can  it  be  said  that  any  incitements 
to  agriculturists,  or  any  resources  for  abundant  population,  exist  be- 
tween Hadjar  Silsilis  in  lat.  25,  and  Khart  ohm  about  lat.  15,  com- 
parable in  value  to  those  infinitely  superior  advantages  to  be  found 
below  the  Thebaid  ; and  which  increase  in  the  exact  ratio  of  your 
descent  from  Ethiopia  to  the  Mediterranean. 

Between  Hadjar  Silsilis,  where  the  sandstone  formations  rise  per- 
pendicularly from  the  very  edge  of  the  river,  and  where  the  Nile  is 
compressed  into  its  narrowest  Egyptian  channel,  and  Khartobm — the 
juncture  of  the  Bithr-el-kbiad,  or  White  Nile,  with  the  Bkhr-el-kz- 
rek,  or  Blue  Nile — there  is  a length  of  some  600  miles,  as  the  crow 
flies,  and  probably  1000  by  the  windings  of  the  river. 

In  this  space,  population  is  now,  and  ever  has  been,  sparse  ; with 
propensities  more  or  less  nomadic,  and  driven  by  natural  causes  to  he 
rather  pastoral  than  agricultural.  If  all  communication  of  the  in- 
habitants of  this  line,  with  the  Egyptians  on  the  north,  and  with  the 
Nigritian  nations  on  the  south,  were  cut  off ; the  mass  of  an  abund- 
ant population  would  perish  from  starvation,  as  it  would  be  impos. 
sible  for  them  to  raise  a sufficiency  of  food  for  their  sustenance. 
Certain  spots,  of  no  great  extent,  are,  however,  fertile,  and  may  sup- 
port a population  in  direct  proportion  to  their  alluvial  superficies. 
Such  a spot  was  the  Isle  of  Meroe  in  ancient  days.  But  to  suppose 
that,  even  thereon,  the  alluvial  soil  was  ever  so  extensive  as  to  fur- 
nish food  for  one  million  of  inhabitants,  would  be  contrary  to  geo. 
logical  evidences,  as  well  as  to  statistical  facts. 

About  Khartobm,  and  upward  through  Sennkar,  the  country  could 
be  rendered  extremely  prolific,  if  a radical  change  were  effected  in 
the  governing  power  ; but,  within  a few  decades  of  miles  to  the 
southward,  commence  the  dense  forests  and  rank  vegetation  of  cen- 
tral Africa,  with  its  inland  seas,  its  annual  rains — territories  that  are, 
and  for  more  than  four  thousand  years  have  been,  inhabited  solely 
by  Negro  races ; where  no  living  White  man  has  ever  penetrated 
500  miles ; and  whence  the  White  Nile  transmits,  from  unknown 
sources,  its  ever-bountiful,  ever-welcome  floods.  On  these  latitudes, 
all  we  can  say  is,  that  we  literally  know  nothing  ; but,  we  may  rea- 
sonably infer  much  ; and  conjecture  anything  we  please.  No  hierolo. 
gist  doubts,  that  the  Pharaonic  governments  of  Egypt  were  better 
acquainted  with  Nigritia  3,500  years  ago,  than  any  geographers  of 
modern  times,  who  have  gone  little  beyond  the  legendary  fragments 
bequeathed  to  us,  2000  years  ago,  by  Eratosthenes. 

Now  Meroe,  we  are  well  aware,  was  a powerful  state  ; and,atonetime, 
gave  a dynasty  of  kings  to  Egypt ; but  this  was  an  accidental  occur- 
rence, of  brief  duration,  and  in  ages  long  posterior  to  primeval  epochs 

Here  pyramids  attest  remote  antiquity.  Temples  bear  witness  of 
later  grandeur.  But  the  Isle  of  Meroe  itself  was  no  “ officina  gen- 
tium”— no  laboratory  of  nations.  It  held  a small  community.  Its 
alluvial  soil  could  merely  support  a population  commensurate  with 
its  area,  and  both  were  small.  Immigration  created  its  social  struc- 
ture— Commerce  supported  its  vitality  and  protracted  its  duration — • 
Religion  sanctified  its  inhabitants,  and  protected  their  trade.  Yet, 
notwithstanding  all  these  attributes,  Meroe  bore  no  more  relation  in 
military  strength,  mass  of  population,  or  physical  power,  to  Egypt ; 
than  to  the  latter  country  was  borne  by  the  Oasis  of  Sekwah,  the 
templed  sanctuary  of  Jupiter  Ammon. 

In  fact,  between  Meroe  and  the  Oasis  the  case  is  parallel.  Both 
were  fertile  spots,  of  limited  area,  in  the  midst  of  deserts — wilder- 
nesses, affording  secure  retreats  to  wild  and  varied  tribes  of  nomads. 
Both  were  equally  exposed  to  their  inroads  : with  this  immense  ad- 
vantage  in  favor  of  Meroe,  that  she  possessed  water-communication 
southward  and  northward  ; and  that,  from  her  geographical  position 
in  relation  to  Abyssinia,  whence  journeyed  Hindostanic  and  Arabian 
commerce  ; to  Nigritia,  whence  gold,  and  slaves,  and  African  pio. 
ductions  swelled  her  marts  ; to  Lybia,  whither  flowed  the  commercial 
stream  toward  Carthage  and  Europe  ; and  to  Egypt,  as  her  presiding 
genius,  and  “ministering  angel,”  she  had  resources,  of  which  the 
Oasis  could  only  partially  partake. 

Geographical  position  rendered  both  of  them  the  concentrating 
points  for  the  divergences  of  commerce,  and  the  transit  of  free  trade 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


45 


— made  them  the  connecting  links  of  vast  countries,  which  were 
separated  from  each  other  by  wildernesses  of  great  extent.  The 
political  foresight  of  the  ruling  powers  of  Meroe  and  of  the  Oasis, 
made  Religion  the  instrument  of  that  control  and  dominion,  which 
were  denied  to  them  by  the  limited  number  of  their  inhabitants,  and 
the  paucity  of  their  respective  inherent  resources.  And  the  roving 
Bisharree,  the  single-minded*  Berber,  the  predatory  Arab,  and  the 
Lybian  archer,  acknowledged  the  moral  sway  of  the  wise  and  sacred 
hierophants — flew  to  arms  at  their  bidding  to  defend  the  temples,  or 
to  harry  a foe — spared  the  caravans,  traversing  their  native  wastes, 
out  of  pious  respect,  and  superstitious  fear,  of  the  sacerdotal  guardi- 
ans of  commerce — and  spell-bound,  as  it  were,  by  the  moral  domin- 
ion of  superior  wisdom,  cringed  beneath  the  dictates  of  the  “ high 
priests  of  Amitn-Ra.” 

It  was  not  from  their  fertility,  which  was  partial ; it  was  not  from 
their  military  force,  which  was  insignificant ; it  was  not  from  their 
population,  which  on  their  cultivable  area  was  unimportant ; it  was 
not  from  the  inherent  resources  of  their  territory,  which  were  inade- 
quate— that  Meroe  and  the  Oasis,  rose  supreme  over  the  wilderness, 
and  ruled  with  despotic  sway  over  the  tribes  of  men  to  each  respec- 
tively adjacent;  but,  from  the  political  wisdom  of  their  respective 
governments.  And,  of  what  race  were  these  sages,  these  deep- 
thinking  politicians  ? I answer,  they  were  Caucasians  ; they  were 
white  men ; they  were  Egyptians — the  high-caste  descendants  of 
Ham,  the  Asiatic  ! and  their  dominion  over  the  varied  nations,  by 
whom  they  were  surrounded,  proceeded  from  the  mental  and  physical 
superiority  of  the  Caucasian  over  ail  African  aborigines. 

These  Caucasians  founded  a pontificate  at  Meroe,  and  at  the  Oasis, 
originating  in  the  same  hierarchal  doctrine,  and  supported  by  its  ties 
with,  and  affiliations  proceeding  from,  the  founders  of  Thebes  and 
of  Memphis.  Its  sway  was  based  upon  the  same  political  principles 
which  have,  through  so  many  centuries,  preserved  Christian  Rome, 
and  not  upon  physical  importance.  The  sources  were  political  fore- 
thought, and  intellectual  discrimination  ; its  duration  proceeded  from 
their  utility  to  the  happiness  of  man,  and  was  consecrated  by  their 
judicious  and  salutary  protection  of  man’s  material  interests.  By  a 
silken  web  confining  his  physical  powers  of  resistance,  while  by  a 
moral  influence  it  secured  his  obedience. 

When,  therefore,  Meroe  and  the  Oasis  arose,  it  became  the  inte- 
rest of  every  neighboring  tribe  and  individual,  to  preserve  institu- 
tions so  beneficial  to  the  prosperity  of  commerce,  so  conducive  to 
the  interchange  of  social  relations  : nor  did  Meroe  expire,  till  the 
doctrine  changed,  after  a duration  of  3000  years. 

I am  perfectly  aware  of  all  the  views  that  have  been  put  forth  by 
the  learned  Von  Heeren,  on  these  subjects;  and  owe  many  of  my 
conclusions  to  the  light  derived  from  him,  and  others  ; but  hiero- 
glyphical  and  craniological  discoveries  have  served  to  dissipate  some 
of  their  positions.  That  beautiful  fabric  of  Professor  Heeren,  so 
astoundingly  constructed  from  such  crude  materials,  is  correct  in 
system  ; but,  in  regard  to  Meroe,  its  application  is  now  reversed  ; for, 
instead  of  appertaining  to  primeval  periods,  it  was  not  consolidated 
till  some  TOO  B.  C. ; and  we  are  discussing  subjects  anteceding  this 
date  by  twenty  centuries. 

It  is  said  by  Diodorus,  that  Egypt  held  about  eight  millions  of 
population,  from  the  1st  Cataract  to  the  sea.  At  present,  owing  to 
the  benign  rule  of  Mohammed  Ali,  there  are  less  than  two  millions. 
In  Nubia,  Dongola,  Meroe,  as  far  as  Khartobm,  it  seems  questionable, 
if,  including  the  nomads  of  the  adjacent  deserts,  there  ever  were  as 
ma.,y  as  one  million  of  inhabitants.  At  present,  there  are  less. 
Even  these  must  look  to  Egypt,  or  Nigritia,  for  the  bulk  of  aliment ; 
for  there  is  not  alluvium  enough  in  these  regions  now,  whereon  to 
raise  a sufficiency  of  substance,  from  Asswhn  to  Khartobm.  And 
yet,  every  year  the  Nile  has  brought  down  additional  soil,  so  that  the 
alluvium  is  greater  now  than  formerly.  Meroe  was  a' province  of 
Egypt  for  2000  years  ; for,  how  could  the  Pharaonic  armies  have 
conquered  Negro  nations  without  passing  by  Meroe?  Armies  in 
Ethiopia  must  follow  the  river  ; else  they  can  find  no  sufficiency  of 
water  ; and  following  the  river,  to  reach  Negro  nations,  not  nearer 
to  Egypt  than  lat.  15,  they  must  unavoidably  have  passed  by  Meroe. 
Negros  are  not  a migratory  race  in  Ethiopic  latitudes,  and  only  come 
northward  by  compulsion. 

We  have  gone  as  deeply  as  was  necessary  into  the  subject  before 
us  to  show,  that  the  case  of  Meroe  is  parallel  with  that  of  the  Oasis. 
No  one,  I presume,  will  think  it  possible  that  the  original  source  of 
the  Egyptians  was  at  the  Oasis  of  Seewah.  Scripturally,  ethno. 
graphically,  geologically,  philologically,  geographically,  historically, 
and  monumentally,  it  is  as  unreasonable  to  make  Meroe  in  Ethiopia 
the  birth-place  of  the  Egyptians.  It  is  vain  to  quote  Herodotus  or  Dio- 
dorus, Eiatosthenes  or  Strabo,  on  questions  whereon  they  could  learn 
but  little,  inasmuch  as  the  events  precede  them  by  2000  years.  With 
these  classical  writers,  as  with  some  others  in  modern  times,  it  has 
been  customary  to  take  “ omne  ignotum  pro  magnifico.  ” 

Sufficient  has  been  said,  to  evince  the  stand  we  take  in  early  Egyp- 
tian history,  in  order  that  we  may  not  find  ourselves  behind  the  age  in 
the  continual  progress  of  discovery  ; and,  in  the  same  mode  that  we  as- 
serted that  the  Delta  was  inhabitable  at  the  time  of  Mizraim’s  arrival 
so  now  we  still  maintain,  that  Meroe  and  Ethiopia  were  unqualified’ 

* Terme<|,  derision,  by  the  Arabs,  “ Aboo-*huKle-wahe;)”-fatl,ers  of  one  job-in 
consequence  of  their  national  stolidity,  and  their  inability  to  entertain  more  than  one 
idea  at  a time. 


geographically  and  geologically,  to  nurture  the  primeval  parents  of  the 
noble  race,  whom  we  now  know  to  have  been  high-caste  Caucasians. 

A point  has  been  reached  in  this  exposition,  where,  before  pro- 
ceeding further,  it  is  imperative  on  me  to  acknowledge  the  source, 
whence  I derive  these  views  of  primeval  Nilotic  history  ; and  it  is 
with  cheerful  readiness  that  I indicate  my  valued  friend,  Dr  Samuel 
Geo.  Morton,  of  Philadelphia,  as  my  authority  for  the  positive  de- 
monstration of  the  Caucasian  race,  and  Asiatic  origin  of  the  ancient 
Egyptians. 

Under  the  title  of  “ Crania  iEgyptiaca,’  has  appeared  from  Dr.  Mor- 
ton’s pen,  a memoir,  wherein  the  Caucasian  race  of  the  early  Pha- 
raonic Egyptians  is,  for  the  first  time,  demonstrated,  by  a mass  of 
craniological,  anatomical,  historical  and  monumental  evidence.  1 
have  had  the  full  advantage  of  Dr.  Morton’s  revision  of  whatever  on 
this  subject  is  herein  advanced  ; while,  so  far  as  my  name  may  be 
associated  with  the  “Crania  EEgyptiaca,”  it  need  only  be  said  that  1 
derive  the  original  idea,  all  the  craniological  facts  in  its  support,  and 
by  far  the  greater  portion  of  the  argument  herein  put  forward,  from 

the  perusal  of  this  work  no  less  than  from  these  sub 

jects  having,  for  six  years,  formed  the  substance  of  much  epistolary 
intercourse,  and  for  many  months,  the  constant  theme  of  conversa- 
tions between  its  author  and  myself. 

Were  it  not  for  the  conviction,  thus  acquired  from  the  incontro- 
vertible array  of  facts  set  forth  in  the  “ Crania  iEgyptiaca,”  (fact3 
hitherto  unpublished  by  any  writer  in  the  world  ; and,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  Sir.  J.  G.  Wilkinson  and  one  or  two  others,  heretofore 
contested  by  all  hieroglyphical  authorities,)  I should  not  have  ven- 
tured to  take  up  against  the  opinions  of  learned  and  unlearned,  the 
subject  of  the  Caucasian  race  of  the  Egyptians;  but  reposing  in  con- 
fidence upon  the  labors  of  one  so  eminently  qualified  to  decide,  I am 
not  apprehensive  of  the  consequences  in  the  minds  of  those  who 
will  peruse  the  work  thu3  announced.  Furthermore,  its  author  is 
not  responsible  for  any  deviations  from  his  views  I may,  perhaps 
erroneously,  have  adopted. 

To  show,  however,  that  an  adequate  foundation  exists  for  the  novel 
assertions  1 have  made,  I extract  from  the  ’’Crania  /Egyptian a,  a few 
paragraphs  which  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  views  of  the  author  of 
that  work  ; merely  premising  that  the  heads  employed  in  Dr.  Mor- 
ton’s researches,  were  obtained  by  me  from  seven  sepulchral  local- 
ities in  Egypt  and  Nubia. 

Dr.  Morton  remarks,  that  the  entire  series  of  one  hundred  crania 
“ may  be  referred  to  two  of  the  great  races  of  men,  the  Caucasian 
and  the  Negro,  although  there  is  a remarkable  disparity  in  the 
number  of  each.  The  Caucasian  heads  also  vary  so  much  among 
themselves  as  to  present  several  different  types  of  this  race,  which 
rqay,  perhaps,  be  appropriately  grouped  under  the  following  desig- 
nations : — 

CAUCASIAN  RACE. 

“ 1.  The  fPe/asgic  Type.  In  this  division  I place  those  heads 
which  present  the  finest  conformation,  as  seen  in  the  Caucasian  na- 
tions of  western  Asia,  and  middle  and  southern  Europe.  The 
Pelasgic  lineaments  are  familiar  to  us  in  the  beautiful  models  of 
Grecian  art,  which  are  remarkable  for  the  volume  of  the  head  in 
comparison  with  that  of  the  face,  the  large  facial  angle,  and  the 
symmetry  and  delicacy  of  the  whole  osteological  structure. 

“2.  The  Semitic  Type,  as  seen  in  the  Hebrew  communities,  is 
marked  by  a comparatively  receding  forehead,  long,  arched  and 
very  prominent  nose,  a marked  distance  between  the  eyes,  a low, 
heavy’,  broad  and  strong  and  often  harsh  development  of  the  whole 
facial  structure. 

“3.  The  Egyptian  form  differs  from  the  Pelasgic  in  having  a nar- 
rower and  more  receding  forehead,  while  the  lace  being  more  prom- 
inent, the  facial  angle  is  consequently  less.  The  nose  is  straight 
or  aquiline,  the  face  angular,  the  features  often  sharp,  and  the  hair 
uniformly  long,  soft,  and  curling. 

NEGRO  RACE. 

“ The  true  Negro  conformation  requires  no  comment;  but  it  is 
necessary  to  observe  that  a practised  eye  readily  detects  a few  heads 
with  decidedly  mixed  characters,  in  which  those  of  the  Negro  pre- 
dominate. For  these  I propose  the  names  of  Negroid  crania;  for 
while  the  osteological  development  is  more  or  less  that  of  the  Negro, 
the  hair  is  long,  but  sometimes  harsh,  thus  indicating  that  combina- 
tion of  features  which  is  familiar  in  the  mulatto  grades  of  the  pres- 
ent day. 

“ The  following  is  a Tabular  View  of  the  whole  series  of  crania, 
arranged,  in  the  first  place,  according  to  their  sepulchral  localities, 
and  in  the  second,  in  reference  to  their  national  affinities.”  The 
Table  speaks  for  itself.  “It  shows  that  mote  than  eight  tenths  of 
the  crania  pertain  to  the  unmixed  Caucasian  race  ; that  the  Pelas- 
gic form  is  as  one  to  one  and  two  thirds,  and  the  Semitic  form  one 
to  eight,  compared  to  the  Egyptian : that  one  twentieth  of  the  whole 
is  composed  of  heads  in  which  there  is  a trace  of  Negro  and  other 
exotic  lineage;  that  the  Negroid  conformation  exists  in  eight  in- 

*Crania  /Egyptiaca,  or  Observations  on  Egyptian  Ethnography, 
derived  from  Anatomy,  History  and  the  Monuments.  By  Samuel 
George  Morton,  M 1).  4to  Philadelphia,  1844,  J.  Penington. 

“ fl  do  not  use  this  term  with  ethnographic  precision;  but  mere- 
ly to  indicate  the  most  perfect  type  of  cranio-fucial  outline.” 


46 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


ttances,  thus  constituting  about  one  twentieth  part  of  the  whole  ; 
and  finally,  that  the  series  contains  a single  unmixed  N egro.” 


“Ethnographic  Table  of  one  hundred  ancient  Egyptian  Crania. 


Sepulchral 

Localities. 

No. 

Egyp- 

tian. 

Pelasgic. 

Semitic. 

M i xed 

fegroid. 

5; 

CD 

jq 

o 

C- 

C 

Memphis, 

26 

7 

16 

1 

1 

1 

Maabdeh, 

4 

i 

1 

2 

Abydos, 

4 

2 

1 

1 

Thebes, 

55 

30 

10 

4 

4 

5 

2 

Omhos, 

3 

3 

Phihe, 

4 

o 

1 

i 

Debod, 

4 

4 

101) 

49 

29 

6 

5 

8 

i 

2 

From  these  and  an  infinity  of  other  details  embraced  in  Dr.  Mor- 
ton’s work,  he  lias  drawn  the  following  among  other  conclusions: — 

“ The  valley  of  the  Nile,  both  in  Egypt  and  Nubia,  was  original- 
ly peopled  by  a branch  of  the  Caucasian  race. 

“ These  primeval  people,  since  called  the  Egyptians,  were  the 
Mizraimites  of  Scripture,  the  posterity  of  Ilam,  and  directly  affilia- 
ted with  the  Libyan  family  of  nations. 

“ The  Austrai-Egyptian  or  Meroite  communities  were  an  Indo- 
Arab'an  stock  engrafted  on  the  primitive  Libyan  inhabitants. 

“ Besides  these  exotic  sources  of  population,  the  Egyptian  race 
was  at  different  periods  modified  by  the  influx  of  the  < aucasian  na- 
tions of  Asia  and  Europe, — Pelasgi,  or  Hellenes,  Scythians  and 
Pheriicians. 

“ 'I’he  Copts,  in  part  at  least,  are  a mixture  of  the  Caucasian  and 
the  Negro,  in  extremely  variable  proportions. 

“ Negroes  were  numerous  in  Egypt,  but  their  social  position  in 
ancient  times  was  the  same  as  it  now  is,  that  of  servants  and  slaves. 

“ The  present  Fellahs  are  the  lineal  and  least  mixed  descendants 
of  the  ancient  Egyptians  ; and  the  latter  are  collaterally  represented 
by  the  Tuariks,  Kabyles,  Sivvahs,  and  other  remains  of  the  Libyan 
family  of  nations. 

“ The  modern  Nubians,  with  a few  exceptions,  are  not  the  descen- 
dants of  the  monumental  Ethiopians,  but  a variously  mixed  race  of 
Arabs  and  Negroes. 

“ The  physical  or  organic  characters  which  distinguish  the  several 
races  of  men,  are  as  old  as  the  oldest  records  of  our  species.” 

The  Scriptures  inform  us,  that  Mizraim  came  from  the  banks  of 
the  Euphrates  into  Africa,  and  that  his  descendants  colonized  Lower 
Egypt. 

To  bring  the  ancestors  of  the  Egyptians  from  Ethiopia,  leads  to 
consequences  irreconcilable  with  primeval  biblical  migrations.  Ham 
and  his  son  were  indisputably  Caucasians — to  find,  therefore,  that 
their  Egyptian  descendants  were  Caucasians  also,  is  perfectly  in  ac- 
cordance with  nature,  and  with  Scripture. 

Lower  Egypt  and  the  Delta-,  would  naturally  be  the  region  most 
suited  to  agriculture  ; and  contrary  again  to  the  general  current  of 
opinion,  it  was  here  that  the  earliest  Egyptians  settled — it  was  here, 
that  the  most  ancient  cities  arose — and  here,  that  the  most  ancient 
monumental  piles  still  remain,  to  attest  the  correctness  of  the  asser- 
tion, 

The  erection,  in  Lower  Egypt,  of  the  most  ancient  monuments 
we  encounter,  does  not  at  all  impede  the  migration  of  the  Caucasian 
race,  at  a very  early  period  into  the  Thebaid,  or  even  as  far  as  Meroe  ; 
nor  is  the  inferior  relative  antiquity  of  those  vast  edifices,  that  proud- 
ly demand,  for  Thebes,  and  the  Thebaid,  an  age  nearly  parallel  to 
those  of  Lower  Egypt,  devoid  of  explanation  on  other  grounds  ; but, 
t is  an  indisputable  fact,  since  the  application  of  the  Champollion 
jests  to  any  of  the  ruins  in  the  Nilotic  valley,  that  the  most  ancient 
restiges  preserved  to  us  lie  north;  and  the  earliest  extant  are  the 
Memphite  pyramids;  while  those  found  to  the  southward,  are  com- 
paratively more  recent ; with  the  doubtful  exception  of  the  pyramids 
of  Meroe  in  Ethiopia,  which  will  be  attended  to  in  due  course. 

In  the  interval  previous  to  the  accession  of  Menes,  and  subsequent 
to  the  dispersion  of  mankind  from  Shinar,  must  that  wandering  tribe 
of  Caucasians,  who  settled  permanentlv  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile, 
nave  entered  Egypt  from  Asia  ; and  although  we  possess  not  the 
slightest  account  of  the  time,  beyond  that  of  its  occurrence  between 
Noah  and  Abraham,  and  none  of  the  mode  in  which  this  march 
must  have  taken  place,  from  Assyria  into  Egypt ; yet,  the  fact  of  the 
Asiatic  origin,  and  Caucasian  race  of  the  early  Egyptians  being  de- 
clared in  the  Bible,  and  proved  by  anatomy,  with  monumental  and 
historical  corroborations;  it  maybe  desirable  to  inquire  how  far  geo- 
graphical facilities  smoothed  their  path,  and  whether  topographical 
circumstances,  in  connection  with  localities  in  Egypt,  admit  of  and 
confirm  their  introduction. 

According  to  the  facts,  set  forth  in  Morton’s  “ Crania  jEgyptiaca,” 
we  find  the  Caucasians  occupying  Egypt,  at  the  remotest  time  we 
can  descry;  and  any  errors  unintentionally  committed  in  speculating 
upon  the  road  they  took  from  the  Asiatic  continent  to  Egypt,  will 
not  affect  the  fact  of  their  journey. 

Whether  their  progress  was  slow,  such  as  a pastoral  people  (we 


may  infer  they  were  at  that  primeval  time)  encumbered  with  families 
and  flocks,  would  necessarily  adopt ; or  whether  it  was  the  rapid 
march  of  men  driven  by  political  convulsions,  or  family  feuds  to  seek 
safety  in  countries  remote  from  their  first  origin,  are  questions  in 
themselves  hypothetical,  though  the  former  speculation  has  most  ot 
probability.  Whether  their  migration,  from  east  to  west,  was  ante- 
rior or  posterior  to  the  dispersion  of  Babel,  I leave  others  to  deter- 
mine ; in  either  case,  we  may  recognize  the  all-wise  hand  of  Provi- 
dence, accomplishing  by  natural  instruments,  and  according  to  im- 
mutable organic  laws,  the  object  of  man’s  creation.  Whether,  prior 
to  their  entry,  they  possessed  any  information  concerning  the  fertility 
and  salubrity  of  that  smiling  valley-land,  whereon  the  “ sacred  Nile” 
by  its  periodical  inundations,  spreads  its  rich  alluvium,  must  ever 
remain  doubtful. 

That  they  had  their  women  with  them  is  certain  ; as  they  preserved 
their  blood,  pure  and  intact,  from  amalgamation  with  African  abo- 
rigines; excepting,  in  partial  instances,  of  much  later  times,  proceed- 
ing from  very  natural  causes,  and  affecting  mainly  those  provinces 
which  were  adjacent  to  these  Africans ; but  no  more  influencing  the 
mass  of  population  in  Lower  and  Middle  Egypt,  at  any  period,  than 
is  apparent,  or  usual,  as  I have  before  remarked,  with  the  present 
Fellah  and  Arab  inhabitants  of  these  districts  at  this  day. 

The  simplest  view  of  the  case  would  lead  one  to  infer,  that,  in 
proportion  as  the  increase  of  human  and  animal  population  rendered 
the  area  of  Assyria  too  limited  for  the  peaceful  attainment  of  a 
sufficiency  of  food,  small  parties,  offsets  from  the  patriarchal  tree, 
wandered,  like  the  Bedawees  of  the  present  day,  pasturing  their  cat- 
tle in  search  of  forage,  along  the  valleys  of  Palestine.  The  van- 
guard of  these  nomads,  pushed  forward  constantly  by  the  advance 
of  later  separations  from  the  main  body,  or  induced  by  other  eontin- 
gences,  which  we  may  conjecture,  but  cannot  define,  crossed  the 
small  desert,  which  even  at  the  present  day,  in  winter,  offers  every 
facility  for  similar  migrations,  and  reached  the  valley  of  the  Nile, 
somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of  Pelusium. 

Once  in  the  land  of  Goshen,  it  may  be  readily  imagined,  whoever 
came  the  first  would  not  be  long  in  inviting  his  friends  and  relations 
to  join  him  (and  to  sojourn  permanently)  in,  what  must  have  been 
to  a herdsman,  as  it  is  the  present  day  to  the  agriculturist,  a terres- 
trial paradise.  Similar  causes  always  produce  similar  effects.  Po- 
pulation increased,  and  migration  continued,  until  every  atom  of  the 
then  alluvial  soil  between  the  deserts  of  Suez  and  of  Lybia,  and 
from  the  sea  beach  to  that  extreme  point,  where  an  African  climate 
becomes  mortiferous  to  the  white  man  (which  region  commences 
about  the  16th  degree  of  latitude  in  Ethiopia  above  Egypt,)  was 
colonized  by  the  Asiatic  Caucasians  ; and,  in  those  remote  countries, 
by  their  intermixed  descendants.  As  population  increased,  the 
herdsman  was  forced,  by  interest,  and  want  of  pasture  room,  to  be- 
come a farmer;  and  the  first  spade  struck  into  the  yielding  black  mud 
of  the  receding  Nile,  was  the  first  step  toward  that  civilization  and 
power  which,  for  2000  years,  made  Egypt  the  greatest  country  of  the 
earth. 

I deem  it  requisite  only  to  allude  to  the  prevalent,  but  erroneous 
notion  of  the  African  origin  of  the  ancient  Egyptians,  in  so  far  as  to 
express  my  disbelief  of  the  possibility,  that  the  Caucasian  route  from 
Asia  to  Egypt,  could  have  lain,  in  those  primeval  times,  across  the 
Red  Sea,  at  the  straits  of  Bhb-el-Mandeb,  or  higher  up.  Eet  any  one 
look  at  the  map,  and  measure  the  distance  from  Assyria  to  Meroe, 
by  that  road — let  him  pause  and  consider  the  vast  geographical  ob- 
structions to  be  encountered  in  Arabia : the  time  it  would  take  to 
overcome  them;  and  then  let  him  consider  the  little  chronological 
space  we  have  for  the  events  that  occurred  in  Egypt  between  Miz- 
raim and  Abraham  ; and  allow,  that  without  overthrowing  Scripture, 
this  doctrine  cannot  be  maintained. 

From  Assyria  and  the  plains  of  Shinar,  even  at  this  day  (aside 
from  human  insurmountable  difficulties)  the  journey  through  Arabia 
across  the  Red  Sea,  into  Abyssinia,  over  the  deserts  of  Catareff,  to 
Meroe,  and  thence  down  the  Nile,  1600  miles,  to  Lower  Egypt  and 
the  sea-board,  would  be  almost  impossible  to  a family  accompanied 
by  children  and  by  flocks.  It  may  be  objected,  that  this  migration 
was  not  immediate,  but  may  have  occupied  ages.  In  that  case,  my 
reply  is,  that  their  journey  must  have  been  rapid,  and  accomplished 
within  a few  years  ; or  we  must  reject  even  the  Septuagint  chro- 
nology as  insufficient.  To  pass  over  the  Red  Sea  with  flocks  and 
large  family  incumbrances,  implies  vessels;  whence  could  they  ob- 
tain timber  on  the  western  Arabian  coast?  how  procure  materials 
for  naval  construction  and  outfit,  in  those  primeval  times  ? 

A mere  glance  at  the  map  of  Abyssinia  will  present  obstacles, 
after  their  supposititious  arrival  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Red 
Sea,  to  render  their  progress  toward  Meroe  and  Ethiopia,  anything 
but  desirable  ; nor  is  there  any  point,  whereon  the  advocates  of  the 
African  theory  can  hang  a reasonable  hypothesis,  since  the  results 
obtained  by  Dr.  Morton,  and  detailed  in  his  “ Crania  jEgyptiaca.” 

Asiatic  in  their  origin,  springing  from  the  same  stock  as  Shem 
and  Japheth,  and  Caucasian  in  their  osteological  conformation,  the 
Egyptians  were  white  men,  of  no  darker  hue  than  a pure  Arab,  a 
Jew,  or  a Phoenician  ; and  it  is  auite  as  justifiable,  and  equally  rea- 
sonable, to  draw  the  dusky  and  the  sable  inhabitants  of  Africa  from 
Shem,  the  type  of  the  Hebrews  and  the  Arabs  ; or  from  Japheth,  the 
type  of  the  Europeans,  as  to  derive  the  Berbers  and  the  Negroes  from 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


47 


Ham,  whom  Scripture  tells  us  was  the  parent  of  the  Egyptians  ; and 
as  such,  Ham  must  have  been  an  Asiatic  and  Caucasian,  since  we 
know  positively,  that  his  Egyptian  descendants  were  Caucasians,  as 
pure-blooded  in  origin  as  ourselves. 

The  climate  of  Egypt  will  never  change  a Caucasian  into  a Negro, 
a black  into  a white  man  ; and  we  have  yet  to  learn  what  effect  cli- 
mate may  have  had,  in  every  other  latitude,  on  the  physical  organi- 
zation of  man,  on  the  material  variation  of  his  hair  and  skin,  or  on 
his  osteological  and  craniological  conformation. 

How  the  real  African  aborigines — the  Berbers  and  the  Negroes, 
were  disseminated  over  Ethiopia  and  Nigritia,  is  foreign  to  my  dis- 
course, nor  do  1 presume  to  offer  an  hypothesis. 

It  does  not  seem  possible  (although  the  men  are  excellent  swim- 
mers) that  they,  and  still  less  their  females  and  children,  swam  across 
the  Red  Sea ! and,  if  it  be  necessary  to  import  these  African  races 
from  the  Asiatic  hive,  the  same  reasons  which  render  the  Isthmus  of 
Suez  the  route  the  most  natural  to  the  Caucasian  children  of  Ham, 
may  likewise  have  served  for  the  ancestors  of  the  Berbers  and  the 
Negroes. 

Equally  unnecessary  does  it  seem,  to  speculate  whether  Egypt  was 
inhabited  by  any  or  by  what  tribe  of  man,  at  the  period  of  Mizraim’s 
immigration;  because  such  a speculation  would  imply  the  possibility 
of  the  existence  of  other  people  at  the  time  of  Noah’s  descent  from 
the  ark — a supposition  hitherto  irreconcilable  with  all  we  learn  from 
Scripture.  These  are  problems  still  insoluble  by  human  reason — 
their  results,  such  as  are  developed  to  us,  point  out  the  miraculous 
ordinations  of  the  Creator  without  unfolding  his  inscrutable  ways — 
and  I again  repeat,  there  is  no  more  biblical  reason  or  authority  to 
derive  the  Negroes  from  Ham,  than  from  Shem  or  Japheth;  and  if 
climate  is  to  have  effected  the  change,  the  same  causes  must  have 
produced  the  same  effects,  operating  on  the  same  physical  principles; 
so  that  it  is  just  as  probable  that  the  Caucasian  Shem  or  the  Cauca 
sian  Japheth  was  the  parent  of  African  races,  as  the  Caucasian  Ham, 
whose  children,  the  Egyptians,  were  like  their  father  and  his  blood- 
brothers,  Asiatics  and  Caucasians. 

Finally,  it  seems  more  natural,  that  a tribe,  coming  from  Asia  and 
adopting  Egypt  as  its  resting  place,  should  have  entered  that  country 
by  the  route  which,  from  the  earliest  times,  has  been  the  high  road 
of  nations  between  the  Asiatic  and  African  continents.  It  was  by 
the  Isthmus  of  Suez  that  the  Hykshos,  the  Scythian  shepherd  kings 
of  remote  antiquity,  came  and  were  expelled  ; this  Isthmus  was  like- 
wise the  beaten  road  of  the  Hebrews  from  Abraham  to  the  Exodus, 
as  it  is  at  the  present  day  between  Jerusalem  and  Egypt.  It  served 
the  Egyptians  under  the  Pharaohs  and  the  Ptolemies,  as  the  route 
for  their  military  expeditions  and  for  all  commercial  intercourse  with 
Asia. 

The  Persians,  under  Cambyses  and  Artaxerxes  Ochus,  Alexander 
with  his  Macedonian  phalanx,  the  Saracens  under  Atuner,  and  the 
Ottomans  under  Soolttm  Selebtn,  used  it  as  their  undeviating  highway 
into  and  out  of  Egypt;  while  from  the  most  ancient  postdiluvian 
period  to  the  present  hour,  it  has  afforded  and  will  continue  to  afford, 
the  same  facilities  between  Asia  and  Africa,  that  induced  me  to  select 
it  as  the  route  of  the  Caucasian  family  of  Mizraim. 

An  important  confirmation  of  the  Asiatic  origin  of  the  Egyptians, 
and,  indeed,  of  all  the  views  herein  put  forward,  is  to  be  derived 
from  the  results  established  by  the  learned  ethnographer,  philologist, 
and  critical  hierologist,  Dr.  Leipsius ; who  has  proved  the  affinities 
between  the  Indo-Germanic,  Semitic  and  Coptic  languages,  to  be 
identical,  proceeding  from  their  common  origin  in  one  primeval 
source.  This  discovery  puts  the  seal  of  authenticity  even  as  to  lan - 
guage  upon  the  Asiatic  origin  of  the  early  Egyptians;  while  it  goes 
iar  to  explain  all  Coptic  linguistical  affinities  with  Hebrew,  Arabic, 
Sanscrit,  and  other  Asiatic  tongues. 

We  have  brought  the  children  of  Ham,  under  Mizraim,  into  Lower 
Egypt:  here  they  settle;  here  they  multiply  ; and  hence  they  spread 
all  over  the  alluvial  soil  of  Egypt,  from  the  Mediterranean  to  Meroe, 
following  the  Nile,  in  a natural  course  of  migration  and  settlement. 
Agriculture  supersedes  all  pastoral  habits;  cities  and  orderly  commu- 
nities take  the  place  of  the  tents  and  the  roving  irregularities  of  the 
Nomad.  The  progress  of  civilization  must  have  been  so  amazingly 
rapid,  that  to  preserve  our  confidence  in  Scriptural  chronology,  we 
are  forced  to  conclude  (as  stated  in  a previous  chapter)  that  the  chil- 
dren of  Ham  brought  along  with  them  all  the  knowledge  and  experi- 
ence accumulated  during  antediluvian  periods  from  Adam  to  Noah, 
and  by  this  second  father  of  the  human  race,  transmitted  to  the  Egyp- 
tians. We  can  form  but  little  idea  of  its  original  amount;  but,  within 
a few  generations  from  the  immigration  of  Mizraim,  we  find  monu- 
ments that  attest  a skill  in  the  arts,  an  acquaintance  with  practical 
sciences,  a profound  knowledge  of  political  economy  and  principles 
of  government,  an  extent  of  civilization  of  every  kind,  equal  (save  in 
the  luxury  and  refinements  superfluous  to  the  necessities  of  human 
life)  to  the  extreme  civilization  and  well-regulated  social  system  ex- 
isting in  Egypt  at  any  future  peiiod.  There  are  very  few  arts  or 
sciences,  the  early  antiquity  of  which  astounds  us  on  the  monuments 
of  Egypt,  but  must  have  been  familiar  to  the  Egyptians  prior  to  the 
erection  of  the  pyramids.  As  we  proceed,  we  shall  mention  some 
of  the  most  prominent. 

The  time  and  the  increasing  ratio  of  population,  are  equal!)'  unde- 
finable  ;with  this  exception,  that,  taking  the  Deluge  somewhere  about 


3200  B.  C.,  on  the  authority  of  the  Septuagint,  and  the  immigration 
of  Mizraim  into  Egypt  in  the  third  generation  after  the  Flood,  we 
have  a vacuum  of  about  four  hundred  years  ; which  we  may  legiti- 
mately fill  with  all  these  preparatory  labors.  The  reason  I pretend 
even  to  guess  at  the  interval  (which  is  purely  conjectural,  and  merely 
possible)  is,  that  the  events  which  I shall  soon  show  to  have  occurred 
subsequently,  occupy  all  the  space  left,  from  about  2700  B.  C.  to  the 
present  year.  It  is  with  extreme  difficulty  that,  even  then,  Egyptian 
chronological  facts  can  be  circumscribed  within  this  limited  area. 

Traditionary  legends,  floating  in  the  works  of  Greek  writers  on 
Egypt,  inferences  gleaned  from  the  mythological  doctrines  that  wrap 
truth  in  the  garb  of  fable,  and  deductions  legitimately  drawn  from 
the  monuments,  enable  us  to  consider  it  probable,  that  a priestly  aris 
tocracy  was  the  first  form  of  general  government  n Egypt ; createc 
gradually  out  of  the  union  of  those  patriarchal  heads  of  villages,  who 
probably  governed,  each  his  own  family,  in  the  same  manner  that 
an  Arab  tribe  of  the  present  day  is  ruled  by  its  own  Shdykh  and  the 
elders  of  the  community.  This  would  be  perfectly  in  accordance 
with  Oriental  and  Asiatic  customs,  that  have  varied  but  little  since 
the  patriarchal  ages  in  Lower  Asia  and  Arabia. 

A hierarchy  appears  to  have  been  the  first  form  of  general  govern- 
ment adopted  by  the  Egyptians  of  that  primeval  period  ; which  we 
feel  persuaded  preceded  the  establishment  of  a monarchy.  This 
hierarchy,  we  presume  to  have  commenced  within  a few  generations 
of  Mizraim’s  immediate  descendants  ; to  have  increased  in  power 
until  the  accession  of  Menes,  the  first  Pharaoh  ; and  to  have  ruled 
Egypt  during  the  conjectural  period  of  about  400  years. 

It  is  here  necessary  to  explain,  that,  from  the  earliest  times,  the 
Caucasian  inhabitants  of  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  regulated  their  social 
system  by  the  division  of  castes  ; which,  however,  must  not  be  judged 
of  by  the  notions  we  derive  from  India;  for  the  Egyptian  system  ol 
caste  was  merely  a division  of  classes,  without  any  of  those  rigidities 
to  this  day  practiced  in  Ilindostan. 

From  the  primitive  simplicity  of  a patriarchal  government,  wherein 
the  eldest  of  the  tribe  governs  by  general  consent,  as  a father  controls 
the  domestic  welfare  of  his  family,  the  gradual  increase  of  the  num- 
bers of  these  elders,  in  proportion  to  the  increase  of  their  respective, 
families,  probably  suggested  to  them  the  propriety  of  union ; and  ti.u 
Egyptians,  essentially  a religious  community,  bowed  beneath  the 
mild  rule  of  a theocracy.  This  theocracy,  formed  1 y the  union  of 
the  elders,  was  the  first  form  of  general  government,  in  which  secula- 
and  ecclesiastical  interests,  at  first  submitted  to  the  control  of  tuc 
aged,  become  in  a short  time  a hereditary  right  in  certain  families, 
where  the  character  of  priest  gave  power,  independently  of  the  age 
of  the  individual. 

Champollion  Figeac  has  so  clearly  expressed  the  most  accurate 
views  on  this  particular  head,  that  I will  adopt  his  language. 

“A  theocracy,  or  a government  of  priests,  was  the  first  known  to 
the  Egyptians ; and  it  is  necessary  to  give  this  word  priests,  the  ac. 
ceptation  that  it  bore  in  remote  times,  when  the  ministers  of  reli- 
gion were  also  the  ministers  of  science  (and  knowledge  ;)  so  that 
they  united  in  their  own  persons  two  of  the  noblest  missions  with 
which  man  can  be  invested,  the  worship  of  the  Deity,  and  the  cul- 
tivation of  intelligence. 

“This  theocracy  was  necessarily  despotic.  On  the  other  hand, 
with  regard  to  despotism,  (we  add  these  reflections,  to  reassure  the 
readers  too  ready  to  take  alarm  at  the  social  condition  of  the  early 
Egyptians,)  there  are  so  many  different  kinds  of  despotism,  that  the 
Egyptians  had  to  accept  one  of  them,  as  an  unavoidable  condition. 
In  fact,  there  is  in  a theocratic  government  the  chance  of  religious 
despotism  ; in  a monarchy,  the  chance  of  a military  despotism  ; in 
an  aristocracy,  or  oligarchy,  the  chance  of  a feudal  despotism  ; in  a 
republic,  the  chance  of  a democratic  despotism — everywhere  a chanco 
of  oppression.  The  relative  good  will  be  where  these  several  chances 
are  most  limited.”  And,  with  respect  to  the  form  of  government 
best  adapted  to  the  social  happiness  of  man,  opinions  are  as  varied 
as  are  the  countries,  and  human  races  on  the  earth.  That  institu- 
tion which  is  admirably  suited  to  Europeans,  may  be  odious  and  de- 
leterious to  Orientals. 

In  Egypt,  under  the  primitive  theocratic  government,  the  nation  was 
divided  into  three  distinct  classes — the  priests,  the  military,  and  the 
people  ; an  arrangement  whereby  the  first  two,  the  privileged  classes, 
conspired  to  hold  the  third,  and  most  numerous,  in  subjection. 

“ Time  and  the  hour  run  through  the  roughest  day and  when  a 
political  evil  becomes  insupportable,  nature  has  provided  that  it  shall 
work  its  own  cure. 

The  progress  which  time  inevitably  realizes  everywhere,  effected 
in  Egypt  a notable  alteration  in  this  state  of  things. 

A rivalry  sprang  up  between  the  two  ruling  classes.  The  military 
grew  tired  of  blindly  submitting  to  ecclesiastical  sway,  without  par- 
taking of  their  full  share  of  control.  The  physical  power  being  in 
the  hands  of  the  military  chiefs,  a revolution  was  the  consequence 
of  these  jealousies. 

A military  chieftain  seized  the  sceptre  of  dominion  ; established 
a royal  government,  and  made  the  throne  hereditary,  through  his 
line  of  descendants.  A soidier  of  fortune,  but  a statesman  in  mind, 
changed  and  ameliorated  the  social  condition  of  Egypt ; and  con- 
secrating the  progress  the  nation  had  already  made,  perpetuated  it 
through  a long  succession  of  after  centuries. 


48 


ANCIENt  EGYPT. 


This  chief  was  Menes  of  History — Menei, 
“ who  walks  with  Amun,”  of  the  sculptures ; 
M who,  from  the  days  of  Syncellus,  has  been  con- 
founded with  Mizraim,  or  rather,  according  to 
Syncellus,  with  Mestraim. 


y I would  here  observe,  that  if  ancient  Egypt 

was  ever  called  Mestraea,  we  have  no  evidence 
T T kt  c r ei'  °f  tlle  name  in  hierog;yPhics  : although  it  may 

M c 1 be  derived  from  two  Egyptian  roots,  and  com- 

pounded of  Mes,  begotten,  and  Be,  the  Sun.  If  Mizraim  be  Mes- 
traim he  was  certainly  not  Menes  ; and  if  Menes  be  Mestraim,  he 
was  certainly  not  Mizraim,  who  preceded  Menes,  by  at  least  400 
years.  We  fall  into  palpable  anachronisms  in  endeavoring  to  make 
one  man  out  of  two  personages,  distinct  in  time,  in  name,  in  attri- 
butes, and  in  everything  else.  Brevity  requires  that  I should  limit 
my  arguments  simply  to  the  exposition  of  this  fact ; by  not  observing 
which,  ancient  and  modern  writers,  (with  a few  exceptions  among 
the  hieroglyphists,  including  the  learned  chronologist,  Dr.  Hales,) 
have  rendered  early  Egyptian  history  a chaos  of  anachronisms. 

This  grand  political  revolution  had,  over  the  social  welfare  of  the 
nation,  an  influence  most  salutary  and  durable.  From  a sacerdotal 
despotism,  that  in  the  name  of  Heaven  exacted  implicit  obedience  to 
the  privileged  members  of  the  hierarchy,  the  Egyptians  passed  under 
the  authority  of  a tempered  civil  monarchy,  and  acquired  a constitu- 
tion that  rendered  them  free  as  well  as  happy. 

The  chief  of  the  state  was  king,  or  Pharaoh  ; and  his  power  was 
transmitted,  in  the  order  of  primogenitureship  to  his  male  children  ; 
to  his  daughters,  if  he  had  no  sons  ; or  to  his  brothers  or  sisters,  if 
his  direct  line  should,  by  absence  of  offspring,  be  broken.  There 
was  no  Salic  law  in  Egypt;  and  in  a country  where  females  were 
admitted  to  a full  participation  in  all  legitimate  privileges  with  man — 
where  women  were  queens  in  theirown  right — royal  priestesses  from 
their  birth;  and  otherwise  treated  as  females  are,  in  all  civilized  and 
Christian  countries  ; there  were  none  of  these  social  restrictions 
that  elsewhere  enslaved  the  minds,  or  constrained  the  persons  of  the 
gentler  sex. 

We  have  the  most  positive  and  incontrovertible  evidence,  in  a 
series  of  monuments  coeval  with  Egyptian  events  for  2500  years,  to 
prove  that  the  female  sex  in  Egypt  was  honored,  civilized,  educated, 
and  as  free  as  among  ourselves ; and  this  is  the  most  unanswerable 
proof  of  the  high  civilization  of  that  ancient  people.  This  is  the 
strongest  point  of  distinction  between  the  Egyptian  social  system  of 
ancient  times,  and  that  of  any  other  eastern  nation.  Even  among 
the  Hebrews,  the  Jewish  female  was  never  placed  in  relation  to  man, 
in  the  same  high  position  as  her  more  happy  and  privileged  sister  en- 
joyed in  Egypt.  And  if,  at  the  present  day,  Mahommedanism  has 
overthrown  all  the  rights  of  the  female  sex  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile  ; 
or  if,  in  any  ancient  or  modern  nation,  females  were  or  are  oppressed, 
it  was  certainly  not  from  the  early  children  of  Ham  that  they  took 
their  precedent ; not  from  the  primitive  Caucasian  inhabitants  of 
Egypt,  that  the  enslavers  of  the  gentler  sex  received  their  lesson. 
Some  of  the  evidence  for  this  assertion  will  appear  as  we  proceed ; 
but,  in  the  mean  time,  let  us  render  to  the  ancient  Egyptians  the 
proud  honor  of  being  the  first  nation  who  appreciated  the  moral  ca- 
pabilities, social  virtues,  intellectual  attributes,  and  civil  rights  of 
woman. 

In  the  procession,  Tomb  of  Gurnah,  the  gallantry  of  the  Egyp- 
tians is  proved,  by  two  queens — Aahopht  and  Aahmes-Nofreari 
(queens  of  Amunoph  1st.)  taking  precedence  of  the  kings  ; and  this 
in  a private  tomb  ! 

The  royal  authority  was  not  absolute.  The  sacerdotal  order  pre- 
served in  the  councils,  their  rightful  positions — the  military  were 
there  to  maintain  order  and  to  strengthen  the  monarchy,  but  were 
citizen- soldiers ; and  in  the  great  assemblies,  termed  pancgyries, 
wherein  all  religious,  warlike,  civil,  administrative,  commercial,  poli- 
tical, statistical,  internal  and  external  affairs  were  periodically 
.reated  ; the  priests,  the  military,  the  corporations,  and  the  people 
were  represented,  and  the  interests  of  all  were  protected,  according 
1 '■  the  wise  institutions  of  the  Egyptians.  The  classes  of  Egypt  may 
be  divided  into  Jour  great  castes  ; but  not,  as  before  said,  on  the 
rigid  system  of  the  Hindoos.  These  were  the  priests,  the  soldiers* 
the  agriculturalists,  and  the  tradesmen  of  all  denominations ; each 
subdivided  into  more  or  less  categories — but  no  Egyptian  was  an 
outcast  from  civil  rights  in  this  world,  or  debarred  from  eternal  hap- 
piness in  the  world  to  come,  save  by  his  own  misconduct ; and  in 
the  latter  respect,  the  king  and  the  peasant  were  equally  amenable 
to  the  inexorable  judgment  of  Amenti — “ the  future  state,”  and 
ultimate  tribunal. 

With  the  accession  of  Menes,  dates  the  consolidation  of  the  inter- 
nal polity,  and  of  those  wise  and  well-regulated  institutions,  that 
astonish  us  by  their  perfection  and  practical  utility,  as  much  as  by 
the  remoteness  of  their  antiquity.  I do  not,  at  present,  deem  it  ne- 


cessary to  enumerate  or  detail  them ; because  an  acquaintance  with 
the  greater  portion  will  be  rather  a consequence  of  the  history  of 
Egypt,  as  I am  about  to  unfold  it;  while  I prefer  leaving  whatover 
may  now  be  omitted  to  a future  summary.  It  is  necessary  f/rst  to 
establish  the  chronological  scale  of  hieroglyphic  developments, 
before  discussing  points,  which  in  date  are  dependent  on  monu- 
mental evidence. 

The  fragments  we  possess  of  ancient  Egyptian  history,  in  the 
writings  of  early  travellers  and  chroniclers,  .permit  our  dividing  the 
dynasties,  of  Egypt  into  three  categories,  viz: 

1st—  The  rule  of  the  Gods — or  Auritae  ; 

2n3— The  rule  of  the  Demigods — or  Mestraeans  ; 

3rd — The  rule  of  thirty-one  successive  human  dynasties — or 
Egyptians. 

I.  The  Gods.  Under  this  designation  it  may  be  plausibly  con- 
jectured, that  the  ancient  Egyptians,  in  their  legendary  tales  to  the 
Greeks,  classed  those  primeval  events,  which  are  known  to  us  as 
an‘ediluvian.  It  is  also  curious,  that  “ Cronus,  and  the  other  twelve 
divinities,”  who  are  said  to  have  reigned  during  3984  years,  do  not 
very  widely  differ  in  number  from  the  patriarchal  generations  from 
Adam  to  Noah.  The  sun,  in  hieroglyphics,  being  a type  of  Horus, 
which  is  of  the  same  root  as  Rii,  Ouro,  Aur,  gave  probably  the  name 
of  Auritse  to  the  Egyptians,  as  the  “ children  of  the  sun.”  The  word 
Auritee  has  been  referred  to  the  “ Golden  age,”  of  heathen  mytho- 
logy, but  the  term  aurum  itself  is  derived  from  that  universal  root 
aur,  the  sun,  which  reverses  the  current  derivation. 

II.  The  Demigods — or  Mestraeans,  may  be  explained  hypotheti- 
cally, as  referring  to  those  pristine  postdiluvian  times,  which  em- 
brace the  dark  period  from  Noah  to  the  accession  of  Menos  : a period, 
according  to  my  view,  of  some  500  years  ; in  the  first  century  of 
which  Mizraim  may  have  colonized  Egypt.  The  term  Mestraean, 
viewed,  as  above  stated,  in  its  meaning  of  “ begotten  of  the  sun,” 
again  sends  us  back  to  the  primitive  aur. 

III.  The  Men,  or  Egyptians,  commence  their  rule  with  Menes, 
the  first  Pharaoh,  and  continue  through  31  successive  dynasties,  to 
the  invasion  of  Alexander  the  Great,  in  B.  C.  332.  From  this  era, 
history  and  the  monuments  enable  us  to  define  the  period  of  the 
Lagidi,  or  Ptolemies,  down  to  29  B.  C.  The  hieroglyphics  thence 
bring  us  down  to  Caracalla,  the  Roman  Emperor,  when  this  mode 
of  writing  ceased,  about  215  after  the  Christian  era,  and  when  the 
race  of  Ham  ceased  to  be  politically  recognizable. 

In  regard  to  the  reign  of  the  gods,  and  the  demigods,  however, 
one  point  is  very  clearly  established  by  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson;  which 
is,  that  the  Egyptians  never  had  the  folly  or  impiety  to  trace  their 
own  origin  to  deities.  On  the  contrary,  they  ridiculed  the  Greeks, 
for  supposing  themselves  to  be  a heaven-descended  race,  in  a right 
line  of  succession  ; for  the  Egyptians  were  a practical  people,  and  a 
sensible. 

When  the  priests  showed  to  Herodotus  a series  of  345  images  of 
men,  who  had  successively  filled  the  office  of  high  priest ; as,  at  a 
former  period,  they  had  exhibited  a similar  set  of  portraits  to  Heca- 
taeus — they  laughed  at  Hecatffius,  who  claimed  a deity  for  his  ICth 
ancestor  ; and  told  Herodotus,  that  “ each  was  a Piromis,  son  of  a 
Piromis.”  Piromis  being  the  Greek  corruption  of  the  Coptic  Pi-romi, 
the  man  ; and  the  strict  meaning  of  the  sentence  being  “ a man,  son 
of  a man  ;”  we  have  herein  an  indisputable  proof  of  Herodotus’s 
ignorance  of  the  commonest  words  of  the  native  language  of  a 
country,  concerning  which  he  wrote  so  largely,  and  so  very  learn- 
edly. His  ignorance  was  natural  enough,  but  his  presumption  may 
be  dqyided  by  us,  as  much  as  his  credulity  was  the  sport  of  the 
humorous  Egyptians. 

When,  therefore,  in  a document,  called  by  Syncellus  “ the  Old 
Egyptian  Chronicle,”  the  rule  of  gods  and  demigods  on  earth,  pre- 
cedes the  reign  of  human  monarchs  ; we  must  make  full  allowance 
for  the  errors  of  Greek  translators,  rendering  into  their  own  tongue, 
and  adapting  to  Hellenic  comprehension,  the  lofty  ideas,  and  mystic 
designations  of  the  Egyptians.  Nor  must  we  accuse  the  dead,  whose 
monuments  present  a mute  refutation  of  Grecian  fallacies,  of  en- 
tertaining fantasies,  such  as  are  handed  down  to  us  by  Herodotus. 
Under  the  guise  of  mystic  attributes,  and  through  the  medium  of 
symbols,  the  veiled  truths  of  which  were  not  divulged  to  the  “ impure 
foreigner,”  the  Egyptian  gods  and  demigods,  of  the  Old  Chronicle, 
probably,  ore  nothing  more  than  our  patriarchal  antediluvian  and 
postdiluvian  generations.  Bigotry  and  fanaticism,  among  the  early 
Christians,  prevented  their  perceiving  that  every  stigma  cast  on  tho 
pure  doctrines  of  primeval  antiquity  would  detract  from  the  au 
thority  of  Moses  ; who,  as  before  stated,  was  undoubtedly  “ learned 
in  all  the  wisdom  of  the  Egyptians.” 

I now  proceed  to  lay  before  the  reader,  two  tables  of  Egyptian 
history — one  the  Old  Chronicle  ; and  the  other  compiled  from 
Manetho  by  Rosellini  and  ChampolLion  Figeac,  v*ith  a few  addi- 
tions of  my  own. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


49 


EGYPTIAN  DYNASTIES. 


THE  OLD  EGYPTIAN  CHRONICLE. 

1st. — Reign  of  the  Gods — or  Auritje — Antedii.uvian  period  ? 


Barharismus  ? Years. 

To  Hephaestus — Vulcan — Pthah,  the  Creator — is  assigned 

no  time,  as  he  is  apparent  both  by  day  and  night,  00,000 
Helios — the  Sun — the  son  of  Hephajstus — reigned  three 

myriads  of  years,  equivalent  to  30,000 

Cronus,  and  the  other  twelve  Divinities  reigned  together,  3,984 


Gods  reigned — years,  33,984 


2nd. — Reign  of  the  Demi-Gods — or  Mestrelans — Y ears. 

Postdiluvian  period — Scythismus  ? 

The  eight  kings — Demi-Gods — (or  Mizraimites  ?)  reigned 

together,  217 

3rd. — Reign  of  Men — or  Egyptians — Ilcllenismus  ? 

The  15 -generations  (families,  dynasties, or  royal  houses'?') 
comprised  in  the  Cynic  Cycle — or  Sothic  period — 
reigned,  443 

The  remaining  15  dynasties  of  kings — commen- 
cing with  the  16th  dynasty  and  ending  with 
the  30th  dynasty — reigned  together,  1881 

Egyptians  reigned,  2324 

Years,  36,525 

These  years  36,525 — end  before  Christ,  359. 


MANETHO’S  EGYPTIAN  CONSECUTIVE  DYNASTIES.. 


ORDER  OF 

THEIR  ORIGIN. 

NUMBER  OF 

NUMBER  OF 
FOUND  IN 

NAMES 

HIEKO- 

LENGTH  op 

BEGAN 

BEFORE 

POSSIBLE 

MONUMENTAL 

MISCELLANEA. 

DYNASTIES. 

KINGS. 

GLYPHICS 

1841. 

UP  TO 

THEIR 

REIGNS. 

CHRIST. 

REDUCTION. 

PARALLELS. 

1st. 

Thinite, 

8 

1 

Years, 

252 

Years, 

5867 

B.C.2715? 

After  Flood  439 

2nd. 

Tanite, 

9 

? 

” 

297 

11 

5615 

[years  7 

3rd. 

Memphite, 

8 

? 

197 

11 

5318 

■ Pyra’idsffclite 

4th. 

Memphite, 

8 

4 

11 

448 

11 

5121 

5th. 

Elephantinite, 

9 

* 

e > 

11 

248 

11 

4673 

Tombs. 

6th. 

Memphite, 

6 

11 

203 

11 

4425 

Copper  Mines, 

Names  unknown 

7th. 

Memphite, 

5 

11 

75 

11 

4222 

Quarries, 

8th. 

Memphite, 

5 

bo  y.  « 
a 2 2 

11 

100 

11 

4147 

•Years  443 

Relics  and  Papyri. 

Idem 

9th. 

Ileliopolite, 

4 

O C J* 

s g a 

11 

100 

11 

4047 

Great 

Idem 

10th. 

Hcliopolite, 

19 

r-  b.5d 

11 

185 

11 

3947 

Number  of 

Idem 

11th. 

Theban, 

17 

_c  : 

l> 

59 

11 

3762 

Unplaced  kings. 

Idem 

12th. 

Theban, 

7 

-C  o 

11 

245 

3703 

11 

Uncertain 

13th. 

Theban, 

60 

= c J3 

11 

453 

11 

3417 

»* 

Idem 

• 14th. 

Xoite, 

76 

^ to 

© •=  e 

11 

484 

11 

3004 

11 

Idem 

15th. 

Theban, 

— 

^o-2 

11 

250 

11 

2520 

” [lis. 

Idem 

16th. 

17th. 

Theban, 

J Theban, 

5 

r \ 

5 

G 

11 

11 

190 

260 

» 

11 

2272 

2082 

Obelisk  of  Heliopo- 
Karnac. 

Tablet  of  Abydos 
Abraham’s  visit 

) Hykshos, 

18 

Temples,  Tombs, 

18th. 

Theban, 

17 

11 

348 

11 

1822 

Palaces,  Tablets, 

[1920 
Moses  B.C.  1491 

19th. 

20  th. 

Theban, 

Theban, 

6 

12 

6 

9 

11 

11 

194 

178 

11 

11 

1473 

1279 

Papyri,  Relics, 

<fcc.  &c.  &c. 

21st. 

Tanite, 

7 

7 

11 

130 

11 

1101 

all  over 

22nd. 

23rd. 

Bubastite, 

Tanite, 

9 

4 

7 

9 

11 

11 

120 

89 

11 

11 

971 

851 

Egypt  and 

Nubia. 

Rehoboam 

B.  C.  971 

24th. 

Saitic, 

1 

7 

11 

44 

11 

762 

25th. 

Ethiopian, 

3 

3 

11 

44 

11 

718 

26th. 

Saitic, 

9 

b 

11 

150 

11 

674 

27th. 

Persian, 

8 

4 

11 

120 

11 

524 

28th. 

Saitic, 

1 

1 

11 

6 

11 

404 

29  th 

Mendesian, 

Sebennitic, 

5 

4 

11 

21 

M 

398 

30th. 

3 

1 

11 

38 

11 

377 

31st. 

Persian, 

3 

7 

11 

8 

11 

339 

31  dynasties 

378  kings. 

End,  B.  C.  331 

Conquest  of  Egypt  by  Alexander,  B.  C.  332.  Luqsor.  Roman  Dominion  in  Egypt,  B.  C.  30.  Dendera. 

Accession  of  Ptolemy  Soter,  B.  C.  304.  Philae.  . Last  monumental  hieroglyphical  date,  A.  D.  215.  Esne. 

Fall  of  the  Lagidi,  B.  C.  30.  Ombos,Edfoo. 


The  upper  table  is  a reduction  of  the  “ Old  Egyptian  Chronicle,” 
preserved  to  us  by  Syncellus.  This  appears  to  be  a succinct  compi- 
lation, made  in  Egypt  about  the  reign  of  Nashtcnebf,  of  the  30th 
dynasty,  say  B.  C.  359.  I have  already  explained,  that  the  “ reign 
of  the  gods”  refers  possibly  to  our  antediluvian  period,  when  those 
heresies,  termed  by  the  fathers  of  the  church,  barharismus,  seem  to 
have  been  first  introduced.  This  heterodoxy  they  explained,  as 
evinced  by  the  fact,  “ that  then  men  had  no  rulers  and  that  their  im- 
piety and  insubordination,  brought  down  upon  them  the  vengeance  of 
the  Most  High,  and  the  obliteration  of  all  mankind  save  Noah’s  fam- 
ily. It  is  conjectured,  that  the  first  two  reigns  refer  to  those  events 
anteceding  the  creation  of  man,  which  enter  into  the  category  of 
geological  periods,  of  which  it  seems  the  Hierophants  had  some 
knowledge;  in  confirmation  of  which,  the  names  of  the  gods  them- 
selves lend  some  feeble  glimmer;  for  Cronus  is  “time  immeasura- 
ble;” and  Vulcan,  who  is  our  Pthilh,  typifies  “ the  creative  power” 
of  the  Almighty.  When  Solon,  the  Athenian  lawgiver,  discoursed 
with  the  Egyptian  sages  about  those  events  which  had  happened  to 
the  Pelasgic  Greeks,  such  as  the  traditions  concerning  the  first  Pho- 
roneus,  and  Niobe,  and  the  deluge  of  Deucalion  and  Pyrrha,  one  of 
the  most  venerable  of  the  sacerdotal  ancients  exclaimed,  “ O Solon, 
Solon ! you  Greeks  are  always  children;  nor  is  there  such  a thing  as 
an  aged  Grecian  among  you.  All  your  souls  are  juvenile  ; neither 
containing  any  ancient  opinion  derived  from  remote  tradition,  nor 
any  discipline  hoary  from  its  existence  in  former  periods  of  time. 
Y ou  mention  one  Deluge  only ; whereas  irihny  happened  1”  The 


remaining  12  divinities  relate,  probably,  to  the  line  from  Adam  to 
Noah. 

The  “ reign  of  the  demigods”  is  probably  the  period  from  Noah 
to  the  accession  of  Menes ; including  the  primitive  colonization  of 
Egypt,  and  the  theocraticalgovernment,  termed  by  the  fathers,  Scyt/iis. 
mus,  in  reference  to  the  apostacy  of  man,  the  confusion  of  Babel,  &c. 

The  “ reign  of  Men”  begins  with  Menes,  and  the  Pharaonic  mo- 
narchy— termed  also  by  the  fathers,  hellenismus,  on  account  of 
the  spread  of  idolatrous  paganism,  in  which  Terah,  the  father  of 
Abraham,  seems  to  have  participated  with  the  rest.  Yet,  if  exeep. 
tions  to  such  idolatry  existed  in  those  primeval  days,  they  will  be 
found  in  “ the  order  of  Melchisedek,”  and  among  the  initiated  in 
Egyptian  mysteries. 

Then  follows  Manetho’s  list.  Those  ciphers  preceding  the  acces- 
sion of  the  16th  dynasty  are  doubtful,  and  the  chronology  is  reduci- 
ble upon  the  arrangement  of  Syncellus  into  443  years.  The  monu- 
mental parallels  are  positive  in  point  of  relative  position,  without 
requiring  anything  like  Manetho’s  intervening  intervals  of  time  be- 
tween the  pyramids  and  the  obelisk  of  Heliopolis.  I have  added  a 
list  of  the  hieroglyphical  names  already  identified,  which  in  1841 
was  deemed  to  be  correct. 

Taking  the  era  of  the  Deluge,  according  to  the  Septuagint  (after 
the  rejection  of  the  2nd  Cainan)  at  B.  C.,  3154,  we  obtain  some  cu- 
rious coincidences  to  strengthen  our  belief  in  the  correctness  of  the 
record;  while,  at  the  same  time,  they  indicate  the  possible  epoch  of 
Menes. 


60 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


In  the  first  place,  by  the  Old  Chronicle  : 

From  the  birth  of  Christ,  to  the  2nd  king  of 

•10th  dynasty,  there  intervened  Years  35'J 

From  30th  dyn.,  to  15th  1881 

From  15th  to  1st — or  the  accession  of  Mcncs  443 

From  1st  dyn.,  back  to  commencement  of  the 
demigods  (or  possibly  only  to  Mizraim’s 
arrival) 


Postdiluvian  interval 


Years 


2683 


217 

2000 

254 


Septuagint  era  of  Flood,  B.  C.  3154 

This  would  give  us  254  years  between  Noah  and  Mizrann’s  arri- 
val in  Egypt — notan  unreasonable  interval.  Then  217  more  from 
Mizraim,  during  the  theocratic  period  to  Mencs,  who  would  thus  have 
ascended  the  throne  about  B.  C.,  268^  or  471  years  after  the  Deluge. 
In  the  second  place,  by  Manetho : 

Years. 

From  the  birth  of  Christ,  to  Alexander’s  conquest,  332 

From  the  3lst  dynasty  back  to  the  16th  dyn.,  Years  2272 
Less  the  interval  from  Alexander  to  our  Saviour,  332 

Gives  us  for  interval,  between  Alexander  and 
the  16th  dyn., 

From  16th  dynasty  back  to  1st, 


Accession  of  Menes,  B.  C.,  2715 

interval  between  Menes  and  the  Flood,  439 

Deluge,  B.  U.,  3154 

We  thus  obtain  the  accession  of  Mencs,  by  Ma. 

netho,  at  B.  C.,  2715 

By  the  Old  Chronicle  at  2683 


Difference  only— years  32 
between  the  two  records,  after  Manetho  has  been  reduced  on  the 
system  of  Syncellus ; which,  in  subjects  so  remote,  is  of  no  import- 
ance ; and,  in  either  case,  leaves  us  an  interval  of  about  400  years 
between  Menes  and  the  Flood.  Of  course,  this  view  is  purely  hy- 
pothetical; but  it  will  serve  to  show,  that  there  is  nothing  appalling 
in  the  chronological  extension  here  contended  for.  This  will  satisfy 
the  reader,  that  Egyptian  hierology  can  be  reconciled,  in  chrono- 
logical matters,  with  an  orthodox  biblical  record,  no  less  than,  as  I 
have  shown,  with  other  scriptural  subjects. 

But  there  are  other  coincidences,  equally  confirmatory.  Syncel- 
lus has  recorded,  that,  in  the  Old  Chronicle,  this  number  of  years, 
36,525,  divided  by  1461,  gives  exactly  25  sothic  periods  ; this  period 
being  composed  of  1461  vague  or  civil  years  of  365  days.  The 
singularity  of  this  coincidence  may,  at  first  sight,  appear  to  invali- 
date the  record  ; but  on  examination  we  may  derive  from  it  some 
precious  chronological  indications — to  explain  which,  I must  digress. 

There  is  no  point  ascertained  with  more  precision,  than  the  almost 
inconceivatde  remoteness  of  astronomical  calculations  and  observa- 
tions among  the  earliest  Egyptians,  who  appear  to  have  perfected 
•heir  calendar,  for  all  practical  purposes,  at  a peri«d  so  distant,  that 
even  the  Deluge  epoch  of  the  Septuagint  appears  irreconcilable  with 
ne  deductions  thereon  consequent.  Indeed  Champollion  declares, 
what  the  great  mathematician  Biot  confirms,  that  the  astronomical 
dates,  procured  from  the  tombs  of  the  kings  at  Thebes,  would  carry 
back  »he  use  of  a national  calendar  in  Egypt  to  the  year  3235  B.  C., 
wnichis  39  years  beyond  the  Septuagint  flood;  even  without  the  de- 
j’iotion  of  the  interpolated  Cainan  ! I do  not  pretend  to  be  compe- 
•o.it  or.  this  point  to  form  any  opinion  ; and  the  fact  is  merely  ad- 
duced, in  proof  of  the  priority  of  astronomical  knowledge  among 
the  children  of  Tlam  ; who,  as  I said  before,  must  have  brought  into 
Egypt  all  the  learning  of  antediluvian  gerrerations  as  an  inherit- 
ance from  Noah. 

It  would  seem,  that  the  primitive  division  of  the  year,  in  Egypt, 
was  into  12  lunar  months — i.  e.,  that  the  time  occupied  by  the 
moon’s  revolution  round  the  earth,  gave  origin  to  the  month  of  28 
days. 

The  first  change  in  the  Egyptian  year,  was  the  substitution  of 
Solar  for  Lunar  months  ; and  then  the  year  consisted  of  12  months 
of  30  days  each,  or  360  days  ; but,  it  being  very  soon  perceived  that 
the  seasons  were  disturbed,  and  that  they  no  longer  corresponded 
to  the  same  month  ; five  additional  days  were  added  to  the  end  of 
the  last  Egyptian  month,  Mesore,  to  remedy  the  defect  in  the  cal- 
endar, and  to  insure  the  return  of  the  seasons  at  fixed  periods.  To 
those  accustomed  to  our  present  calendar,  and  to  the  division  of  the 
seasons,  Spring,  Summer,  Autumn  and  Winter,  it  maybe  worth  ob- 
serving, that  in  Egypt,  from  the  most  ancient  days  to  the  present 
hour,  the  agriculturalist  recognizes  only  three  seasons  in  the  year. 
The  Arab  of  the  present  day,  who,  in  his  chronological  division  of 
time,  adopts  the  Mahommedan  system  of  Lunar  months  in  all  his 
other  pursuits  ; follows  for  agricultural  purposes,  the  Coptic  months, 


which  are  simply  the  ancient  Egyptian  ; while  both  Copts  and  Arabs 
call  these  months  by  their  ancient  names  to  this  day.  Each  third 
part  of  their  year  consists  of  4 months,  and  is  regulated  in  perfect 
accordance  with  the  seasons  in  Egypt,  and  the  periodical  overflow  ot 
the  Nile.  Thus,  the  first  season  in  Egypt  begins  about  a month 
before  the  end  of  our  autumn.  Itis  called  by  the  Arabs  “ es-Shitteh,” 
or  winter.  It  is  the  season  of  sowing  and  vegetation — and  anciently 
was  termed  the  season  of  the  “ water  plants.”  It  lasts  4 months, 
beginning  about  November,  and  ending  with  the  close  of  February  : 
duration  120  days.  The  second  season  begins  about  the  end  of 
our  winter:  the  Arabs  call  it  “ es-Sbyf,”  or  summer.  It  is  the  sea- 
son of  harvest  and  reaping,  and  was  anciently  styled  the  “ season  of 
ploughing,”  for  then,  as  at  present,  they  prepared  their  lands  for  the 
summer  crops:  it  lasts  4 months,  or  120  days.  The  third  season  com- 
mences about  July,  and  is  called  by  the  Arabs  “el-Harefef,”  or  autumn, 
or  more  usually  “ Neel,”  as  the  period  of  the  inundation  of  the  Nile. 
It  is  the  time,  when  the  river  overflows  its  banks,  and  saturates  all 
the  alluvial  with  its  fertilizing  moisture,  either  by  inundation  or  by 
filtration.  Anciently,  it  bore  the  appropriate  name  of  “ the  season  of 
the  waters.”  Its  duration  is  120  days. 

I would  remark,  that  this  adaptation  of  the  three  Egyptian  seasons 
to  our  months  will  be  found  most  correct,  as  leaving  the  Delta,  you 
approach  the  Thebaid  ; because  on  the  line  of  the  Mediterranean,  at 
Alexandria  for  instance,  the  seasons,  like  almost  everything  else,  are 
more  European  in  their  appearance  ; nor  is  it  fair  to  judge  of  Middle 
or  Upper  Egypt  by  the  sea-coast. 

The  intercalation  of  the  5 complementary  days,  at  the  end  of  the 
year  of  12  solar  months,  brought  the  calendar  to  practical  utility.  It 
was  then  termed  the  vague  or  civil  year,  consisting  of  365  days  ; and 
the  Pharaohs  were  obliged  to  swear,  that  they  would  preserve  it  in 
tact  from  any  intercalation.  This  was  the  only  year  known  to  Hero 
dotus,  to  Plato  and  to  Eudoxus  ! 

This  vague,  or  civil  year  of  365  days,  was  soon  discovered  to  be 
actually  shorter  than  the  duration  of  the  true  solar  year,  by  about  a 
quarter  of  a day,  say  six  hours — for  each  day  of  the  civil  year  retro- 
graded from  the  true  solar  revolution  about  one  day  in  every  four 
years  ; about  one  month  in  every  120  years;  and  about  one  year  of 
365  days  in  1460  years.  By  preserving,  however,  in  ordinary  uses, 
the  civil  year  of  365  days ; there  were  many  advantages  accruing  to 
the  religious  system  of  the  ancient  Egyptians.  The  name  of  each 
month  bore  the  name  of  one  of  twelve  divinities,  and  was  under  its 
especial  protection  ; while  each  day  was  under  the  blessing  of  a 
deity,  as  by  the  Roman  Catholics,  it  is  now  under  the  protection  of  a 
saint.  There  is  but  little  “ new  beneath  the  sun  ;”  and  wherever  we 
turn,  we  find  that  we  are  only  perpetuating  the  notions  and  systems 
of  our  forefathers,  whom  we  stigmatize  as  Pagans,  while  we  adopt 
many  of  their  customs.  Thus,  the  Mahommedans,  at  present  in 
Egypt,  who  go  piously  to  pray  in  the  mosque,  on  a day,  supposed  by 
them,  to  be  the  birth-day  of  a Muslim  saint,  whose  tomb  lies  in  the 
sanctuary  ; or  who  assemble  at  the  periodical  festivals  and  fairs  of  a 
“ Seyd-el-Bddawee,”  and  a “ Seyd  Brahefem-ed-Desodqee,”  are  little 
aware,  that  they  are  only  doing  that  which  was  done  on  the  same 
spots,  at  the  same  seasons,  3000  years  before  the  Muslim  saint,  or 
even  Mohammed  himself  existed!  yet,  nevertheless  it  is  a fact,  and 
the  Mahommedan  clergy  are  prudent  enough  to  regulate  the  annual 
return  of  some  of  these  festivals — not  by  the  Mahommedan,  but  by 
the  Coptic  calendar — not  by  the  lunar,  but  by  the  solar  months. 

By  adhering,  therefore,  to  the  civil  year  of  365  days,  the  priest* 
were  enabled,  in  consequence  of  its  annual  recession,  to  carry  the 
periodical  festivals  through  all  the  different  seasons  of  the  year,  within 
a known  period  ; that  is,  the  same  festivals  would  sometimes  occur 
in  summer,  sometimes  in  winter,  in  regular  undeviating  succession. 

The  same  custom  has  been  adopted  by  the  Mahommedans,  for 
their  fast  of  the  Ramaditn  ; which,  within  my  recollection,  has  passed 
from  midsummer,  through  spring  and  winter,  and  is  now  in  autumn 

The  Egyptian  astronomers,  while  they  thought  it  expedient  to  keep 
the  practical  and  popular  calendar  to  the  civil  year  of  365  days  ; 
were,  however,  perfectly  aware  of  the  necessity  of  a further  interca- 
lation, to  equalize  the  annual  rotation.  They  therefore  created  a 
period,  well  known  to  astronomers  and  chronologists,  as  the  Sothic 
period,  from  Sirius,  the  dog-star,  termed  Sothis  by  the  Egyptians. 
This  period  was  styled  by  the  Greeks,  the  Cynic  Cycle,  from  Cynos, 
a dog.  When,  therefore,  we  use  the  terms  Sothic  period,  or  Cynic 
Cycle,  we  mean  one  and  the  same  thing — end  when  we  say  the 
Sothic  year,  the  Sidereal  year,  the  Cynic  year,  the  Canicular  year, 
we  refer  to  the  year  whose  commencement  was  regulated  by  the  pe- 
riodical and  heliacal  rising  of  the  dog-star,  or  Sirius,  called  Sothis — 
the  star  of  Isis,  and  Isis-Thoth  ; or  perhaps  Thoth- Isis,  (?)  which, 
by  transmutation  into  Greek,  has  become  Sothis.  This  year  con 
sisted  of  365$  days,  whereas  the  civil  year  remained  365. 

It  is  certain,  that  the  first  morning  apparition  of  the  dog-star,  be- 
fore sunrise,  was  religiously  associated  in  Egypt,  with  the  1st  day  of 
the  month  of  Thoth,  called  by  the  Arabs  and  Copts,  “ Toot  ” And 
thus,  the  1st  day  of  Thoth  was  the  first  day  of  the  first  month  of  each 
year.  But  there  was  another  and  a local  cause,  that  connected  the 
heliacal  rising  of  the  dog-star  with  the  rising  of  the  “ sacred  river  ;’* 
the  grandest  natural  phenomenon  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile  ; and  one, 
as  intimately  hallowed  by  the  vast  utility  of  its  benefits,  as  mythically 
interwoven  with  the  religious  doctrines  of  the  Egyptians,  and  sacred 
to  the  memories  of  Osiris»and  Isis. 


1940 

443 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


51 


In  Egypt,  the  dog-star — Sirius  or  Sothia — for  about  3000  years 
B.  C.,  and  for  some  centuries  after,  rose  on  the  same  fixed  day  (mean 
parallel,)  a little  before  the  sun  (heliacal  rising ;)  and  thisday  was  once 
the  20th  day  of  July,  Julian  calendar.  This  star  in  the  course  of  each 
year  ceased  to  be  visible  on  the  horizon  in  Egypt  for  about  a month 
mnd  a half,  because  it  rose  and  set  during  the  day-time  : soon  after, 
it  began  to  be  perceived  in  the  eastern  sky,  a little  before  sunrise  ; 
and  on  the  following  days  it  showed  itself  more  and  more  above  the 
horizon,  before  the  end  of  night.  The  first  appearance  of  the  star 
•f  Isis  occurred  some  days  after  the  summer  solstice,  and  corre- 
sponded exactly  to  the  first  rising  of  the  waters  of  the  Nile.  It  was, 
therefore,  all  important  to  observe  its  movements ; and  these  obser- 
vations soon  proved,  that  the  rise  of  the  dog-star,  which  occurred  on 
the  first  day  of  the  month  of  Thoth  on  one  year,  was  not  visible  four 
years  subsequently  till  the  second  day  of  the  same  month  ; and  four 
years  later,  not  till  the  third,  and  so  on  ; till,  after  120  years,  this  same 
rising  of  the  dog-star  would  not  be  visible  till  the  first  of  the  second 
month  of  the  year,  or  Paopi. 

The  cause  of  this  change  was  immediately  explained,  so  soon  as 
the  priests  remarked,  that  the  civil  year  contained  only  365  days ; 
whereas,  the  heliacal  rising  of  the  dog-star  took  place  after  an  in- 
terval of  365  days  and  a quarter.  The  priests,  therefore,  created  an 
astronomical  or  fixed  year,  by  the  addition  of  one  quarter  of  a day, 
or  six  hours,  to  the  original  civil  year;  which  fixed  year,  being  regu- 
lated by  the  dog-star,  was  termed  the  sotliic  year  of  365^  days,  which 
modern  astronomers  consider  may  have  been  the  true  length  of  the 
year  in  that  latitude. 

It  was  thus  ascertained  that,  as  the  vague  or  civil  year  of  365  days 
was  a moveable  year,  and  as  the  sothic  year  of  365J  days  was  a fixed 
year;  that,  if  at  any  time  these  two  years  began  on  the  same  day, 
1461  civil  years,  or  1460  sothic  years  must  transpire  before  the  same 
circumstance  could  occur  again  ; thus, 

365  X4  gave  the  civil  year  every  1460  sothic  years 
365$  X4  “ sothic  “ “ 1461  civil  “ 

keing  a difference  of  one  entire  year  between  the  sum  of  years  de- 
pendent on  the  solar  months  with  five  days’  intercalation,  and  the 
sum  of  years  dependent  on  the  annual  heliacal  rising  of  the  dog-star, 
in  1460  sothic  years.  Tho  heliacal  rising  of  Sirius  being,  then,  the 
initial  point  of  the  true  year,  the  priests  designated  as  the  sothic 
period  the  series  of  1460  fixed  years,  and  of  1461  vague  years,  by 
which  these  two  should  recommence  on  the  same  instant ; because 
1460  years  of  365J  days,  inclose  exactly  the  same  number  of  days 
that  are  contained  in  the  1461  years  of  365  days  ; there  being  533,265 
days  in  each  of  these  series. 

Such  was  the  calendar  of  the  ancient  Egyptians.  It  is  probable, 
that  to  the  generality  of  readers  this  explanation  is  supererogatory, 
because  it  is  so  familiar.  However,  at  the  risk  of  tedium,  1 have 
inserted  it ; and  now  proceed  to  draw  some  deductions  from  the  facts 
kid  down. 

The  coincidence,  on  the  same  day,  of  the  two  initial  days  of  these 
respective  periods — that  is,  when  the  first  day  of  the  fixed  year  was 
the  first  day  of  the  vague  year — a coincidence  which  could  only  occur 
every  1461  vague  years,  was  in  Egyptian  chronology  a memorable 
epoch.  We  are  told  by  Censorinus,  who  wrote  in  the  third  century 
after  Christ,  that  the  last  time  the  coincidence  occurred,  was  on  the 
20th  July,  139  years  after  Christ;  by  which  we  know,  that  it  oc- 
curred 1322  B.  C.,  and  again  in  the  year  2782  B.  C. : whence  the 
knowledge  we  possess  of  the  learning  of  the  Egyptian  hierarchy, 
legitimately  allows  our  inferring,  that  it  was  by  them  observed. 

The  Greek  astronomers  of  early  times  appear  to  have  been  quite 
■naware  of  the  introduction,  by  the  Egyptians,  of  one  year  in  1461 
vague  years,  or  of  six  hours  at  the  end  of  each  year.  We  have  the 
authority  of  Strabo,  that  the  intercalation  was  unknown  to  Plato  and 
to  Eudoxus,  although  they  are  said  to  have  studied  at  Heliopolis ; 
while  Herodotus’s  ignorance  on  this  matter  is  fully  proved,  by  his 
speaking  of  the  Egyptian  year  of  365  days  having  the  effect  of  keep- 
ing the  seasons  in  their  proper  places ; although,  in  another  passage, 
he  gives  the  most  conclusive  proof  of  the  existence  of  the  intercalary 
quarter  of  a day  in  his  time. 

He  says,  the  priests  reckoned  from  Menes,  341  kings,  or  genera- 
tions ; whence  Herodotus  calculates  an  interval  of  11,340  years : yet 
he  adds,  “During  this  time,  they  (the  priests)  said  the  sun  had  four 
times  risen  out  of  his  customary  places  ; that,  both  where  he  now  sets 
he  had  twice  there  risen  ; and  where  he  now  rises,  he  had  there 
twice  set.”*  By  explaining  this  passage  in  relation  to  the  sothic 
period,  modern  astronomers  see  that,,  under  an  apparent  fable,  the 
priests  mystically  told  him  the  truth,  although  he  did  not  understand 
it.  For,  in  the  interval  of  at  least  2250  years  between  Menes  and 
Herodotus,  embracing  as  it  does  much  more  than  one  sothic  period, 
the  sun  rose  twice  and  set  twice  (at  least)  in  the  same  degree  of  the 
ecliptic.  The  allegory  was  beautiful. 

It  follows  therefore,  that  the  later  Greek  astronomers,  such  as  Hip- 
parchus and  Eratosthenes  (although  they  do  not  acknowledge  the 
soutces  of  their  learning,)  derived  most  of  their  astronomical  know- 
ledge from  the  calculations  of  ancient  Egyptians. 

* 1 have  borrowed  this  explanation  of  Herodotus,  as  well  as  some  chronological  data 
Bi  a previous  chapter,  from  the  “American  Quarterly  Review,”  for  December,  1827; 
which  is  from  the  pen  of  Professor  Renwick  of  Columbia  College.  1 hs  it  not  met  else- 
where with  so  luminous  an  explanation  of  the  subject. 


The  well  known  fable  of  the  Phoenix  seems  to  be  mystically  con- 
nected with  the  astronomical  revolution  of  the  sofliic  period — 
although  it  would  seem  that  the  story  of  its  rising  from  its  ashes  v>is 
unknown  in  the  time  of  Herodotus,  but  was  invented  in  after  times, 
and  was  adopted  by  the  early  Christian  fathers.  There  is  great  con- 
fusion in  the  intervals  between  each  Phoenix ; some  reducing  them  to 
340  years,  others  extending  them  to  1461  years.  It  seems,  however, 
to  have  symbolized,  in  whole  or  in  part,  the  Sothic  Period,  or  great 
astronomical  year  of  the  Egyptians  ; being  found  on  Egyptian  monu- 
ments, dating  as  far  back  as  the  commencement  of  the  18th  Dyn.,  or 
B.  C.  1800.  In  the  Coptic  Pheneh,  meaning  age  or  period,  we  trace 
the  root  of  Phcenix,  and  its  ealendrical  utilities. 

According  to  Horus-Apollo,  the  Phcenix  symbolized  the  soul  of 
man — an  expiring  cycle  of  time — and  also,  the  inundation  of  the 
Nile. 

We  have  the  authority  ofChaeremon  and  Porphyry  for  the  antiquity 
of  the  word  almanack  in  Greek,  long  prior  to  the  Saracens  ; and  for 
the  statement  that  almanacs  are  mentioned  in  the  Books  of  Hermes. 
Some  English  and  Arabic  vocabulists  assert,  that  almanac  is  an 
Arabic  word  !”  I concede  the  article  “ al,”  or  rather  el,  to  be  an 
Arabian  prefix.  Bnt  I should  be  edified  to  learn,  to  what  Arabic 
root  they  trace  the  word  manac.  It  is  probably  of  ancient  Coptic 
origin  ; and  if  ever  used  by  Arab  historians  (for  it  is  unknown  in 
the  Darig,)  it  is  a compound,  like  the  word  almagcst — the  Arabic, 
cl — the,  and  the  Greek,  megistos — greatest;  used  by  Ptolemy  in 
astronomy,  and  by  the  Grenada  Moors  in  alchemy. 

Now,  by  the  authority  of  Syncellus,  in  the  table  of  the  Old  Chron- 
icle, the  first  dynasties  embrace  443  years  of  the  sothic  period ; 
whence  it  follows,  that  the  first  king  of  the  1st  Dyn.,  Menes,  ascended 
the  throne  about  the  year  2782  Julian  B.C. ; and  it  may  bo  inferred, 
that  he  was  the  first  Pharaoh  who  pledged  himself  not  to  alter  the 
calendar. 

The  36,525  years  of  time,  which  the  Old  Chronicle  gives  for  the 
entire  reign  of  gods,  demigods,  and  Egyptians,  divided  by  1461, 
gives  us  exactly  25  sothic  periods ; and  instead  of  being  taken  by  us 
literally,  and  therefore  rejected  by  us  as  fabulous,  must  be  regarded 
as  a vast  astronomical  cycle,  by  which  the  Hierophants  regulated 
their  calendar;  and  their  astronomical  skill  is  nowhete  more  appa- 
rent than  in  their  cycle  of  25  years,  for  adjusting  the  lunar  with  the 
solar  motions  ; whereby  they  possessed  a system  more  rigorously 
correct  than  the  Julian  method  in  similar  reductions. 

The  whole  of  this  digression  is  merely  to  precede  a few  deductions, 
to  enlighten  us  on  the  probable  epoch  of  the  accession  of  Menes  ; a 
fundamental  point  in  all  subsequent  Egyptian  history ; and  without 
deeming  it  absolutely  necessary  to  continue  in  prefatory  explanations, 
I present  the  several  results. 

1st — By  the  astronomical  reduction  of  Herodotus,  according 
to  Professor  Renwick,  we  obtain  the  accession  of  Me- 
nes about  B.  C.  2890 

2nd — By  Syncellus  — Manetho  agrees  with  general  — (or 
Septuagint)  chronology,  if  we  cut  off' 656  years  before 
the  flood,  and  534  afterwards — the  true  period  of 
Egyptian  history,  according  to  him,  would  place  the 
accession  of  Menes — Renwick’s  calculation,  B.C.  2712 
3rd — By  Rosellini’s  reduction  of  Syncellus,  page  15,  vol.  1st, 

Menes  would  fall  about  B.  C.  2776 

4th — By  Champollion  Figeac,  page  267,  the  epoch  of  Menes 

would  be — Freret’s  calculation,  B.  C.  2782 

5th — By  Doct.  Hales’  calculation,  ” 24)2 

6th — By  my  reduction  of  the  “ Old  Chronicle,”  ” 2683 

7th — By  my  reduction  of  “ Manetho,”’  ” 2715 

I have  before  stated,  that  we  could  not  define  with  precision  the 
epoch  of  Menes  within  500  years — but  all  differences  considered, 
between  the  extreme  of  2890  B.  C.  for  remoteness,  and  2412  B.  C. 
for  proximity,  which  added  to  Rosellini’s  and  Champollion’s  esti- 
mates of  the  accession  of  the  16th  dynasty  - B.  C.  2272 
Addition,  -------  478 

Would  place  Menes  about  the  year  - 2750  B.C.; 

which  I am  inclined  to  adopt,  as  within  a hundred  year's  approxima- 
tion of  the  truth : thus  affording  abundance  of  interval,  between  the 
Flood  and  Menes  on  the  one  hand  ; and  possibly  sufficient  for  the 
erection  of  the  works  now  existing  at  Memphis — the  pyramids — be 
tween  Menes  and  the  accession  of  the  16th  Dyn.,  on  the  other. 

Perfectly  aware  of  the  extreme  uncertainty  of  these  calculations, 

I would  observe,  as  an  excuse  for  the  digression,  that  the  epoch  of 
Menes  is  all-important  in  history — that  I have  endeavored  to  recon 
cile  it  with  the  Septuagint  as  nearly  as  possible  within  reason  and 
probability — and  that  I lean  rather  in  favor  of  an  extension  of  the 
interval  between  Menes  and  our  Saviour ; for  which  I could  easily 
bring  forward  a mass  of  arguments  and  explanations,  founded  on 
facts ; among  which  are  the  vast  number  of  “ unplaced  kings”  we 
possess,  who  must  have  lived  between  Menes  and  the  16th  Dyn.  I 
repeat,  however,  to  the  best  of  my  present  belief,  the  epoch  of  Menes 
taken  at  B.  C.  2750,  will  reconcile  monumental  evidences  with  tho 
Scriptural  chronology  of  the  Septuagint  version. 

It  is,  however,  necessary  for  me  to  explain,  why  I hav»  presumed 
to  differ  in  chronology  with  so  learned  a hicrologist  as  Sir  J.  G 


52 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


Wilkinson  ; because,  as  his  works  are  most  familiar  to  my  readers, 
acme  might  be  struck  with  the  discrepancy. 

In  his  “ Topography  of  Thebes”  (London,  1835,  page  506,)  after 
\ preferring  the  list  of  Eratosthenes  to  that  of  Manetho,  for  his  earlier 
series  of  kings,  Sir  J.  G.  W.  says  : 

“ I am  aware,  the  era  of  Menes  might  be  carried  back  to  a much 
more  remote  period  than  the  date  I have  assigned  it ; but  as  we  have 
as  yet  no  authority  further  than  the  uncertain  accounts  of  Manetho’s 
copyist,  to  enable  us  to  fix  the  time  and  the  number  of  reigns  inter- 
vening between  his  accession  and  that  of  Apappus,  I have  not  placed 
him  earlier,  for  fear  of  interfering  with  the  date  of  the  deluge  of 
Noah,  which  is  2348  B.  C.” 

The  lisf  of  Eratosthenes  being  now  of  less  authority  than  Mane- 
tho, and  it  being  impossible  .o  cramp  and  crowd  Egyptian  annals 
into  Archbishop  Usher’s  limit  of  2348  years,  I would  remark,  that 
at  the  time  of  the  construction  of  Sir  J.  G.  W.’s  table,  I was  at 
Cairo  in  gratifying  relations  with  him,  and  therefore  know  that  this 
table  dates  about  1832-33.  The  works  from  which  I derive  the 
basis  of  my  discourse,  have  mostly  been  published  in  France  and  in 
Italy  since  1832  : and  Sir  J.  G.  W.’s  table  is  now  behind  the  age,  and 
the  progress  since  made  in  Egyptian  developments;  while  Col.  Vyse’s 
researches  at  the  pyramids  have  made  the  4th  Dyn.  of  Manetho  loom 
like  a meteor  in  the  night  of  time. 

The  chronology  of  Wilkinson  is  inconsistent  with  itself.  lie  takes 
the  Deluge  according  to  Usher,  at  - * - - B.  C.  2348 

and  he  is  compelled  to  place  Menes  at  least  - - - ” 2201 

as  the  lowest  limit — leaving  between  the  Flood  and  Me-  

nes  an  interval  of  years  147 

at  which  time  it  is  extremely  doubtful,  if  the  Caucasian  children  of 
Noah,  had  around  them  a sufficiency  of  population  to  impel  them  to 
quit  Asia,  and  to  colonize  Egypt.  But,  on  referring  to  page  41,  1st 
Vol.  of  his  invaluable  later  work,  on  the  “ Manners  and  Customs  of 
the  ancient  Egyptians,”  London,  1837,  (uncontradicted  in  his  second 
series  of  1841)  it  will  be  seen  that  the  learned  author,  on  the  author- 
ity of  Josephus,  (who  says  “ Menes  lived  upward  of  1300  years  be- 
fore Solomon,”  which  last  king  ascended  the  throne  of  Israel,  B.  C. 
1015;)  extends  the  date  of  Menes  from  2201  B.  C.  of  his  former 
table  to  2320  B.  C.,  without  any  intimation  that  he,  Sir  J.  G.  W.,  re- 
cognizes a correspondent  precession  of  the  era  of  the  Flood,  which  he 
still  leaves  at  B.  C.  2348. 

If,  as  before  stated,  147  years  are  totally  insufficient,  as  an  interval 
between  Noah  and  Menes,  how  much  more  so  must  be  twenty-eight 
years  ? These  28  years  are  altogether  absurd,  for  Egyptian  local 
events  alone  between  the  Flood  and  Menes ; still  more  so,  when  we 
reflect  on  the  geographical  distance  from  Mount  Ararat  to  Lower 
Egypt,  and  on  the  necessary  prior  multiplication  of  the  human  race 
on  the  plains  of  Shinar. 

That  one  so  erudite  and  critical  as  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson,  should 
have  committed  any  inadvertency  in  such  arrangement,  is  an  impos- 
sibility, On  the  contrary,  it  displays  a design  ; which  may  perhaps 
be  explained,  by  supposing,  that  amid  the  conflictions  of  300  systems 
of  chronology,  on  the  epoch  of  the  Deluge,  the  learned  author  may 
have  deemed  one  view  about  as  well  founded  as  any  other ; while, 
by  placing  so  obvious  an  anachronism  on  the  “ head  and  front”  of 
his  tables,  he  desired  to  show  the  absurdity  of  attempting  to  recon- 
cile Egyptian  monumental  annals  with  Archbishop  Usher’s  Deluge  ; 
and  I feel  extremely  obliged  for  the  argument  I am  thus  enabled  to 
draw,  in  favor  of  my  more  extended  hypothesis. 

Finally,  whether  we  confine  Egyptian  history  to  the  contracted 
limits  of  Usher’s  chronology,  and  the  Hebrew  verity ; or  take  “in  ex- 
tenso”  the  widest  range  legitimately  admissible  on  the  authority  of 
the  Septuagint  version,  it  will  be  found,  that  the  time-honored  chron- 
icles of  Egypt  carry  us  back  to  the  remotest  era  of  early  periods ; 
and  even  then  display  to  us  the  wonderful  and  almost  inconceivable 
evidences,  of  a government  organized  under  the  rule  of  one  monarch ; 
of  a mighty  and  numerous  people  skilled  in  the  arts  of  war  and 
peace  ; in  multifarious  abstract  and  practical  sciences ; with  well 
framed  laws,  and  the  social  lyibits  of  highly  civilized  life,  wherein 
the  female  sex  was  .free,  educated  and  honored  ; of  a priesthood 
possessing  a religion,  in  which  the  Unity  of  the  Godhead  and  his 
attributes  in  trinities  or  triads,  with  a belief  in  the  immortality  of 
the  soul,  a certainty  of  ultimate  judgment,  and  a hope  of  a resurrec- 
tion, are  discoverable  ; concealed  though  they  be  by  the  mysticisms 
of  awise  but  despotic  hierarchy,  and  loaded  by  the  vulgar  castes  and 
the  uninitiated,  with  the  impurities  of  the  grossest  superstition. 

It  will  then  be  seen,  that,  apart  from  those  changes  of  style  and 
fashion,  which  the  conservative  principles  of  the  priesthood  could 
not  altogether  prevent  in  tjie  lapse  of  so  many  ages,  the  Caucasian 
inhabitants  of  the  Nilotic  valley  were  in  possession  of  hieroglyphical 
writing,  at  the  farthest  point  of  time  we  can  descry.  And  we  shall 
find  the  Egyptian  children  of  Ham,  the  Asiatic,  as  great  and  as 
learned,  if  not  much  more  virtuous  in  those  primeval  days,  as  they 
were  at  the  invasion  of  the  Persians,  in  the  year  525  B.  C.,  when 
their  monarchy  had  existed  from  1500  to  2000  years. 

Of  what  nation,  obliterated  from  the  face  of  the  earth  at  the  pres- 
ent hour,  or  providentially  surviving  to  defend  its  pretensions  to  prior 
existence,  can  the  contemporary  annals  boast  a similar  antiquity  ? 
To  whom,  but  to  the  Egyptians,  are  we  indebted  for  the  origin  of 
many  of  our  most  important  arts,  and  sciences,  and  institutions? 


And  why  should  prejudices  and  preconceived  notions,  gathered  in 
our  infancy  we  can  scarcely  tell  how,  and  maintained  by  narrow, 
mindedness  and  ignorance,  still  prevent  our  recognizing  in  the  pure 
blooded  Caucasian  inhabitants  of  early  Egypt,  the  sources  of  many 
of  those  benefits,  that  we,  who  recognize  in  Noah  a common 
ancestor,  at  present  enjoy  ? 

There  remains  still  one  final  point,  upon  which  it  is  necessary  for 
me  to  dwell,  before  commencing  the  monarchical  history  of  Egypt; 
and  this  refers  to  the  long-prevailing,  but  erroneous  opinion,  that 
the  kings  or  dynasties  of  Egypt  were  contemporaneous ; that  is,  that 
one  king  may  have  ruled  over  the  Upper,  while  another  may  have 
reigned  over  the  Lower  country  at  the  same  moment ; than  which, 
(however  it  may  be  deemed  expedient  thereby  to  reconcile  the  anti 
quity  of  Egypt  with  the  short  chronology)  there  is  no  more  untenable 
doctrine,  or  one  more  unanimously  rejected  by  the  Champollions,  by 
Rosellini,  by  Wilkinson,  and  by  all  who,  as  hieroglyphists,  have 
examined  the  monuments  and  the  country  itself.  The  arguments 
that  would  remove  all  doubts,  would  probably  be  too  long  to  com- 
mand attention ; but  I crave  indulgence  while  I define  and  establish 
my  own  position,  lest  I should  be  found  hereafter  behind  the  age. 

It  is  herein,  therefore,  maintained,  that,  with  very  few  and  con- 
jectural exceptions,  (on  which  the  arguments  for,  or  against,  are  in 
each  instance  either  equally  balanced,  or  destructive  of  the  contem- 
porary application,)  the  result  of  hieroglyphical  researches  during  the 
whole  period  of  history  from  Menes  downward,  overthrows  such 
an  hypothesis,  as  contemporaneousness.  The  only  contemporary 
dynasty,  by  the  best  authorities  recognized,  is  the  rule  of  the  Hyk. 
shos,  or  Scythian  Shepherd-kings  in  Lower  Egypt,  during  a period, 
probably  of  260  years ; while  the  17th  Theban  dynasty,  of  native 
Egyptian  Pharaohs,  reigned  over  Upper  Egypt,  till  these  last  suc- 
ceeded in  expelling  the  alien  race. 

To  this  solitary  instance  of  two  contemporary  dynasties,  ruling  in 
different  parts  of  Egypt  at  the  same  moment,  may  be  added  that 
period  of  anarchy,  which  preceded  Psamettichus  of  the  26th  Saitic 
Dyn. ; wherein  Herodotus  places  the  rule  of  the  Dodecarchia,  or  rule 
of  12  kings  ; but  this  last  case  is  extremely  doubtful,  and  has  derived 
no  confirmation  from  the  hieroglyphics.  As  we  proceed,  we  shall 
touch  in  their  places  on  points  that  confirm  the  above  view,  while 
we  can  confidently  assert,  that  there  were  no  contemporary  Egyptian 
Pharaohs. 

The  only  correct  view  of  the  classification,  by  Manetho,  of  dynas- 
ties named  Thinite,  Tanite,  Memphite,  Elephantinite,  Heliopolite, 
Diospolite,  Xoite,  Bubastite,  Saitic,  Mendesian,  and  Sebennite,  is  to 
consider  them  not  territorial,  but  family  distinctions ; not  separate 
governments,  but  the  localities,  cities,  or  provinces,  whence  the 
reigning  Pharaoh,  or  his  ancestors  were  derived  by  birth,  or  were  in 
name  associated  through  some  other  unknown  bond  of  connection. 

The  monuments,  and  sacred  and  profane  history,  will  be  found  to 
confirm  and  justify  this  straight-forward  view  of  an  often  “ vexata 
qutestio.” 

We  can  afford  to  smile  at  the  creation  of  an  independent  state  and 
contemporaneous  monarchy,  on  a miserable  little  rocky  island,  not 
more  than  twice  the  size  of  the  New  York  Battery,  and  not  so  large 
as  the  Common  at  Boston,  and  allow  Elephantine  and  its  independ- 
ent and  contemporary  sovereignty  to  sleep  with  the  fabled  and  fabu- 
lous Memnon — the  vocal  Statue — the  negro  features  of  the  Sphinx 
— Cleopatra’s  Needle — Pompey’s  Pillar — the  antiquity  of  the  Zodiacs 
of  Dendera  and  Esnb — the  African  or  Ethiopian  origin  of  the  ancient 
Egyptians,  and  other  odd  fancies  of  an  expiring  age. 


CHAPTER  SIXTH. 

In  the  previous  portion  of  this  discourse,  I gave  the  calculations 
and  arguments,  whereby  the  accession  to  the  throne  of  Menes,  was 
considered  by  me,  to  have  taken  place  within  a century  of  the  year 
2750.,  B.  C. 

To  give  an  idea  of  the  process  adopted  by  the  hieroglyphical 
school  in  re-constructing  Egyptian  history,  no  less  than  to  establish 
the  fact  that  the  ancient  Egyptians  were  Caucasian  in  race,  and  Asia- 
tic in  origin,  I will  dwell  rather  longer  on  this  monarch,  his  deeds  and 
times,  than  at  first  sight  may  appear  necessary,  or  has  been  generally 
thought  requisite  by  my  predscessors  of  the  Champollion  school. 

The  fragments  of  Manetho  give,  as  the  1st  king  of  the  1st  dynasty 
“ Menes,  the  Thinite  ; who  carried  the  arms  of  Egypt  into  foreign 
countries,  and  rendered  his  name  illustrious.  He  died  of  a wound 
received  from  a hippopotamus,  about  the  62nd  year  of  his  reign.” 
Besides  the  authority  of  Manetho,  we  possess  the  testimony  of  other 
ancient  authors,  Herodotus,  Eratosthenes,  Diodorus,  Josephus,  the  old 
Egyptian  Chronicle  of  Castor,  the  Canon  of  Syncellus,  all  agreeing 
that  Menes  was  the  first  of  the  kings  of  Egypt  ; which  is  corrobo. 
rated  by  our  finding  his  royal  oval,  in  hieroglyphics,  as  the  earliest  an- 
cestor of  Ramses  3rd — Sesostris — in  the  procession  sculpturedon  the 
walls  of  the  Theban  Palace,  now  known  as  the  “ Ramsessium,”  but 
formerly,  and  erroneously  called,  the  Memnonium. 

See  tablet,  in  my  lecture  room-  This  Succession  was  cut  in  th* 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


53 


roitr11  of  Ramses — Sesostris,  between  the  years  1565,  B.  C.,  and  1490, 
R C.:  and  us  Mencs 


U.UJJJ 

Gfg£2Sg 


U 


Me  r 


M or  “ Menei,”  is  here  the  first  ancestor  of  Sesostris, 

N we  find  the  sculptures  at  once  confirming  history. 
Eratosthenes  says,  his  name  “Menes,”  means  “Dio- 
nios,”  rendered  “ Jovialis,”  of  or  belonging  to  Jove. 

IE  Jove  is  the  Egyptian  God,  “ Amun,”and  in  Cop- 
tic, “ Menei”  is  an  abreviation  of  “ Amun-ei,”  sig- 
nifying, “ who  walks  with  Amun.”  Josephus  tells 


us  that  Menes  ruled  “ more  than  1300  years  before  Solomon,”  who 
was  born  in  1032,  B.  C., 

To  the  above-mentioned  genealogical  procession  may  be  added  the 
celebrated  chronological  canon  of  the  dynasties  of  Egypt,  written  on 
papy-us,  in  the  hieratic  character,  composed  in  the  15th  century,  B. 
C..  and  now  existing  in  the  Museum  of  Turin.  This  venerable  relic 
is  "in  such  a deplorable  state  of  dilapidation,  that  but  little  can  be  made 
out,  beyond  a few  simple  facts,  that  excite  at  once  curiosity  and  un- 
availing regrets.  But  the  first  page  opens  with  these  words  : “ The 
king,  Menei,  exercised  royal  attributions  years  ’ 

By  some  ancient  writers,  Menes  is  stated  to  have  been  a Theban  ; 
by  others  it  is  said  that  he  was  born  at  the  city  of  Phis,  near  Aby- 
dos,  whence  his  dynasty  is  termed  1 hinite. 

We  are  told  he  founded  Thebes,  which  is  likewise  attributed  to  a 
later  king,  Busiris  ; but  the  concurrent  testimony  of  Herodotus  and 
Josephus  ascribes  to  the  first  king,  Menes,  the  glory  of  founding 
Memphis  ; which  achievement  i3  by  Diodorus  likewise  attributed  to 
another  very  early  monarch,  (though  subsequent  to  Menes)  Ucho- 
reus.  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  Menes  should  not  have 
founded,  or  perhaps  only  extended,  (?)  either  or  both  of  these  cities  ; 
but  it  is  particularly  to  be  remarked, 

1st.  That  Manetho  speaks  of  Atuotiiis,  son  of  Menes,  building  a 
palace  at  Memphis,  whence  we  may  legitimately  infer,  that  the  city 
was  already  in  existence,  and  therefore  was  probably  founded  by  his 


father; 

2nd.  That,  as  Josephus  had  access  to  copies  of  Manctho’s  original 
history,  of  which  we  possess  only  fragments,  and  seeing  that  by  his 
numerous  quotations  therefrom  in  his  defence  of  the  Jews  against 
Apion,  Josephus  shows  that  he,  and  the  world  in  his  day,  placed 
implicit  confidence  in  the  then  indisputable  authority  of  the  learned 
Priest  of  Sebennitus  ; we  may  infer,  that  when  Josephus  assigns  to 
Menes  the  foundation  of  Memphis,  upward  “ of  1300  years  before 
Solomon,”  and  “ many  years  prior  to  Abraham,”  the  Hebrew  chron 
icier  was  not  at  variance  with  Manetho’s  record  of  Egypto-anti- 
quarian  lore  ; while  the  view  of  relative  chronology  taken  by  Jose- 
phus could  not  have  been  contrary  to  the  Jewish  historical  archives, 
such  as  they  were  in  his  time,  previously  to  the  corruption  of  the 
Hebrew  Biblical  text. 

Herodotus,  likewise,  in  attributing  to  Menes  the  building  of  Mem- 
phis, adds,  also,  that  Menes  founded  therein  a“  Temple  to  Vulcan.” 
Now  the  Vulcan,  or  Hephaestus  of  the  Greek  mythology,  who  was 
degraded  by  them  into  a limping  blacksmith,  is  only  a Greek  mis- 
conception and  perversion  of  that  beautiful  Egyptian  mythical  idea, 
whereby  Vulcan  or  “ Pthah”  of  the  Egyptians,  was  but  a form  of  or 
emanation  from  the  Godhead,  symbolizing  the  “ creative  power”  of 
the  Almighty.  We  know  that  Memphis  was  the  city  of  “Pthah,”  who, 
from  time  immemorial  was  here  peculiarly  worshipped.  Memphis 
is  Biblically  “ Noph.”  A telDh  milage  on  its  site  is  termed  Memf, 
or  Menoph,  thus  confirming  history,  sacred  and  profane.  In  hiero- 
glyphics Memphis  is  known  by  several  titles. 


The  Abode  of  Good,  land 

Menofre.  " ~ S the  Pyramid.” 


AAAAA  (J) 


“The  habitation  of  Pthih.” 


One  form  of  the  god  Pthah  was  termed  Pthah-Sokar-Osiris,  and 
was  peculiarly  venerated  at  Memphis.  This  deity  was  often  called 
only  Sokaris,  or  rather  “ Sokar,”  whence  the  present  name  of  the 
village,  which  lies  on  the  Necropolis  of  Memphis,  has  been  inge- 
niously traced,  being  now  called  “ Zacc&ra.” 

Pthah,  or  Vulcan,  we  know  was  worshipped  in  a magnificent  tem- 
ple at  Memphis,  until  Christianity  destroyed  the  doctrine,  and  Ma- 
hommedanism  obliterated  the  edifice,  save  a few  scattered  blocks 
that  still  mark  its  site  amid  the  date  groves  of  Metraheni.  The 
frequent  hieroglyphical  references  to  this  temple,  existing  in  the  time 
of  Herodotus,  though  not  in  its  ancient  splendor,  (as  it  had  then  been 
plundered  by  Cambyses,)  sheds  a confirmatory  glimmer  of  light  on 
the  accuracy  of  the  Greek  historian  in  this  instance  ; because  a 
hieroglyphical  tablet  in  the  quarries  of  “ Toora,”  opposite  Memphis, 
of  the  time  of  Amosis-Thetmose's,  vanquisher  of  the  Hykshos,  and 
last  of  the  17th  Dynasty,  B.  C.  1822,  records  that,  he,  “ Aahmes  took 
good  materials  from  these  quarries  to  repair?  restore?  or  build  ? the 
temple  of  Pthah,  at  Memphis” — a proof  that  the  temple  of  Pthah 
existed  at  Memphis,  prior  to  B.  C.  1822,  or  the  reign  of  Amosis, 


PTIIAn-EI. 


Whence,  even  if  we  had  no  other  evidence  to  bring  forward,  we 
may  already  draw  satisfactory  inferences  that  Herodotus  was  correct 
in  his  account  of  early  Memphis — that  Memphis  was  a city  when 
Athothis,  or  Menes  his  father,  founded  therein  a temple  to  Pthah — 
and  that  this  temple  of  Pthah  existed  before  the  end  of  the  17th 
Dynasty,  B.  C.  1822. 

Again,  Herodotus  speaks  of  the  “ turning  off  of  the  Nile  into  a 
new  channel  by  Menes,”  who  raised  a dike  to  prevent  its  overflow 
from  flooding  the  city — a work  corroborated  by  the  topographical 
nature  of  the  localities,  and  by  the  present  aspect  of  the  Nile,  near 
the  spot  where  the  river  was  diked-off,  about  fourteen  miles  above 
the  mounds  of  Metraheni,  the  site  of  Memphis : and  a precaution 
still  retained  by  the  Fellahs  of  that  district,  to  preserve  their  villages 
from  inundation,  as  well  as  to  control  the  irrigating  utilities  of  the 
“ Sacred  River.” 

This  diking-off  of  the  Ni'e  is  a process,  which  (as  there  is  every 
reason  to  suppose  it  was  performed  by  Menes)  is  a strong  argument 
to  show,  that,  in  his  day,  the  children  of  Ham  had  already  arrived, 
not  only  at  abundant  population,  which  rendered  necessary  the  found- 
ation of  a metropolis,  and  the  economical  preservation  of  the  allu- 
vial soil  above  Memphis  (the  finest  tract  of  land  in  all  Egypt,)  but, 
that  they  had  also  arrived  at  considerable  knowledge  in  hydraulics, 
as  well  as  other  branches  of  science.  Moreover,  as  these  were  works 
not  likely  to  be  attempted  without  necessity,  or  without  long  previous 
experience  of  the  habits  of  the  river,  it  must  be  allowed  they  imply 
a long  prior  residence  in  Lower  Egypt. 

History  thus  enables  us  to  carry  back  the  foundation  of  Memphis 
to  the  accession  of  the  first  king  Menes ; and  it  is  in  her  Necropolis 
or  burial-ground,  we  find  those  monuments,  which,  in  size,  as  in  an- 
tiquity, exceed  all  others  in  the  world,  viz.,  the  pyramids  of  Gheb- 
zeh,  Abobsecr,  Zacciira,  and  Dashobr,  with  some  tombs,  coeval  with, 
if  not  antecedent  to,  the  erection  of  the  earliest ! 

We  are  therefore  enabled  to  establish, 

1st.  Historically,  and  monumentally,  that  Menes  or  Menei,  was  tho 
first  king  of  Egypt. 

2nd.  Historically  and  monumentally,  that,  being  founded  by  Menes, 
Memphis  is  the  oldest  city. 

3rd.  Geographically,  that  Memphis  is  in  Lower  Egypt ; and  thus, 
that  the  children  of  Ham,  coming  from  Asia  and  spreading  over  the 
Nilotic  valley,  considered  Lower  Egypt  the  most  eligible  point  (as 
it  unquestionably  is)  for  a metropolis — for  great  works — and  made  it 
the  chief  seat  of  primitive  monarchial  government. 

Upon  the  authority  of  Josephus,  whose  chronology  is  in  accord, 
ancc  with  the  Septuagint,  and  not  with  the  corrupted  Hebrew  ver- 
sion (independently  of  the  absolute  necessity  for  placing  the  acces- 
sion of  Menes  as  far  back  as  possible,  to  make  room  for  the  kings  who 
reigned  after  him,)  we  establish  the  foundation  of  Memphis  by  Me 
nes,  and  its  existence  as  a Templed  city  ; protected  by  great  artificial 
water-defences,  at  some  period  anterior  to  1300  years  before  Solo- 
mon, or  prior  to  2320  years,  B.C. ; and  we  can  therefore  with  pro- 
priety contend,  that  the  view  herein  taken  of  chronology,  based  on 
tho  Septuagint  version  of  the  Bible,  is  neither  extravagant,  nor  merely 
hypothetical ; because  the  interval  of  28  years  between  the  founda- 
tion of  Memphis  by  Menes,  and  the  Deluge,  according  to  Archbishop 
Usher’s  chronology,  B.  C.  2348,  is  wholly  insufficient  for  the  num- 
berless preparatory  events  that  must  have  employed  the  human  race, 
between  the  multiplication  and  progress  of  Noah’s  family  down  tho 
Euphrates,  till  they  separated  at  Shinar,  and  the  foundation  oi  Mem- 
phis, in  Egypt,  by  a Caucasian  colony.  By  allowing,  on  the  chro- 
nology of  the  Septuagint,  an  interval  of  about  400  to  500  years  before 
wc  seat  Menes  on  the  throne  of  Egypt--  somewhere  about  the  year 
2750,  B.  C. — we  are  not  subjected  to  such  absurd  anachronisms  and 
physical  impossibilities. 

Menes,  chief  of  the  military  caste,  happily  accomplished  the  revo- 
lution which  substituted  a civil  government  for  the  theocracy.  He 
was  the  first  invested  with  the  title  of  Pharaoh  (in  Hebrew,  Phrah) 
or  king;  and,  from  this  new  order  of  things  was  created  a royal  he- 
reditary government.  It  would  appear,  that  Menes  was  occupied 
with  foreign  wars,  though  upon  what  nation  we  have  no  information. 
It  may  be  presumed,  that  these  military  movements  were  chiefly  di- 
rected to  the  protection  of  the  frontiers  of  Egypt  from  the  incursions 
of  adjacent  nomadic  and  barbarous  tribes,  by  which  Egypt  was,  and 
is  still  surrounded  in  every  direction.  To  the  south,  there  were  the 
Berber  and  Negro  races;  to  the  west,  the  Lybians,  along  the  whole 
length  of  the  river  from  Nubia  to  the  sea  ; to  the  east,  lay  the  Eastern 
Desert,  probably  occupied,  as  at  present,  by  mixed  races  of  Arabs 
and  Berbers  ; while  the  Isthmus  of  Suez  required  particular  a ten- 
tion,  as  this  line  of  frontier  was  exposed  to  constant  incursions  of 
Asiatic  tribes,  eager  to  obtain  their  share  of  the  “ flesh  pots  of  Egypt.” 
Of  these  defences  we  have  abundant  vestiges  to  this  day,  although 
we  cannot  say  by  what  king,  or  at  what  time,  they  were  erected. 

I have  already  spoken  of  Egypt,  as  a valley,  between  two  high 
chains  of  hills— the  Lybian  and  the  Eastern  ranges.  The  face?  of 
these,  especially  along  the  eastern  bank,  are  often  quite  perpendicu- 
lar ; so  that  they  act  as  walls  to  keep  the  nomad  from  the  cultivated 
ground  ; but,  at  various  distances,  these  are  intersected  by  deep  ra. 
vines,  along  which  journeys  are  performed,  and  intercourse  isrnain- 
tained  between  the  Nile  and  the  Red  Sea.  Now,  there  is  not  one 
of  these  ravines,  but  at  its  mouth,  nearest  the  river,  there  are  re- 


54 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


mains  of  walls,  that  once  blocked  up  the  passage;  and,  from  the  ru- 
ins in  the  vicinity  of  some,  we  may  conjecture  these  were  forts, 
gates  and  military  stations.  Wherever,  as  you  ascend  the  liver,  you 
find  the  inclination  of  the  hills,  on  the  eastern  side,  such  as  would 
admit  of  communication  between  the  cultivated  soil  and  the  desert, 
you  will  find  traces  thereon,  more  or  less  apparent,  of  a long  brick 
wall,  stretching  from  north  to  south,  and  terminating  only  where  na- 
tural impediments  render  this  wall  unnecessary — taken  up  again  a 
few  miles  beyond;  and  so  on,  all  the  way  to  Nubia.  This  wall  is 
.ermed  by  the  Arabs,  Gisr-el-Agbbs,  or  the  “Old  Man’s  Dike,”  in 
memory  of  its  antiquity. 

The  subject  of  the  relations  of  the  desert-tribes  with  Egypt,  from 
the  earliest  times  to  the  present  day,  is  one  that  has  much  interested 
me,  and  might  be  extended  to  long  and  curious  exposition,  that  would 
remove  many  erroneous  impressions  concerning  the  “ Bbdawees”  in 
the  deserts  adjacent  to  the  Nile. 

It  cannot  be  supposed  that,  by  the  construction  of  this  wall,  the 
Egyptians  intended  to  cut  off  all  intercourse  with  the  desert ; on  the 
contrary,  this  intercourse  was  to  both  parties  essential  ; for  the  nomad 
would  starve  if  he  could  not  obtain  grain  from  the  farmer ; while  the 
latter,  with  the  manufacturer,  requires  the  camel’s  hair,  the  long  reeds 
for  matting,  and  a number  of  productions,  whose  attainment  requires 
the  skill  of  the  son  of  the  desert,  as  much  as  grain  that  of  the  far- 
mer, or  as  useful  manufactures  that  of  the  craftsman. 

The  object  of  the  walls  was  to  bring  the  nomad  under  the  control 
of  a well-regulated  police  ; to  prevent  him  from  pasturing  his  flocks, 
without  paying  for  the  permission  of  the  proprietor  of  the  soil ; or 
from  stealing  the  grain  and  forage  he  was  thus  compelled  to  purchase ; 
with  an  infinitude  of  other  wise  and  excellent  regulations,  conducive 
to  social  good  order,  and  agricultural  economy  ; but  by  no  means  de- 
structive of  friendly  intercourse  between  the  Ishmaelite  and  the 
peasa-nt.  Indeed,  the  Almighty’s  hand  is  nowhere  more  apparent 
in  adapting  man  to  the  nature  of  the  soil  on  which  he  is  to  reside, 
than  in  peopling  the  deserts  around  Egypt  with  a hardy  race,  as  use- 
ful in  their  vocation  as  the  citizen,  the  farmer  and  the  sailor.  Euro, 
pean  civilization  will  work  no  material  changes  in  the  habits  of  the 
“ Bhdawee.” 

But,  though  employed  in  wars,  Menes  distinguished  his  era  by  the 
arts  of  peace.  He  founded  Memphis:  it  is  said  he  built  Thebes. 
He  commenced,  on  a large  scale,  the  diking  and  “canalization,”  so 
essential  to  the  prosperity  of  Egypt.  He  founded  the  great  temple 
of  Pthah;  and  introduced  into  social  life  those  comforts  and  luxuries 
of  civilization,  which,  notwithstanding  the  curse  of  Tnephachthus, 
conduce  to  the  terrestrial  happiness  of  man  ; while  by  his  protection 
of  religion  and  the  priesthood,  he  insured  the  education  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  preservation  of  a religious  system,  that  Christianity  alone 
ufter  a lapse  of  nearly  3000  years  could  overthrow.  We  cannot 
wonder,  therefore,  that  the  memory  of  so  great  a man  should  have 
been  dear  to  his  successors,  or  that  the  monuments  should  attest  the 
veneration  of  a name  handed  down  to  us  by  all  early  writers. 

These  chapters  being  confined  to  the  exemplification  of  Egyptian 
History  by  the  hieroglyphics,  I refer  to  Manetho  for  the  names  of  the 
kings  of  the  1st,  2nd  and  3rd  dynasties,  who  followed  Menes  on  the 
Pharaonic  throne  ; because,  as  yet,  it  has  been  impossible  to  identify 
the  names  of  any  one  of  these  in  the  hieroglyphics ; owing  rather  to 
uncouth  changes,  made  through  ignorance  of  transcribers,  of  the 
names  left  by  Manetho,  than  to  the  absence  of  royal  ovals,  as  I shall 
soon  explain. 

We  glean  from  Manetho,  that  during  these  three  dynasties,  pala- 
ces were  built,  pyramids  were  erected  ; that  Egypt  was  visited  twice 
by  the  plague,  whence  the  antiquity  of  this  disease  in  Egypt  may  be 
inferred.  In  fact,  it  is  an  illusion  to  suppose  that  the  same  natural 
causes  should  not  operate,  in  early  times,  to  produce  the  same  effects 
as  at  present : and  it  has  been  demonstrated  by  Clot  Bey,  that  the 
plague  is  indigenous,  not  only  to  Egypt,  but  to  the  East  in  general, 
ulong  the  northern  coast  of  Asia  and  Africa  ; that  its  causes  are  un. 
known,  but  that  its  developments  are  spontaneous ; that  it  is  an  error 
to  suppose  that  mummification  (begun  in  primeval  epochs  and  con- 
tinued above  3000  years  down  to  the  days  of  St.  Augustine,)  was 
adopted  as  a preventive  (!)  because,  during  the  periods  of  mummifi- 
cation, we  have  abundance  of  sacred  and  profane  history  to  prove  the 
occasional  desolating  effects  of  the  Oriental  pestilence  ; and  finally,  as 
these  two  occurrences  of  the  plague  are  antecedent  to  Abraham,  the 
pestilence  with  which  the  Almighty  visited  the  Egyptians  in  the  time 
of  Moses,  was  not  the  first  instance  of  the  plague  in  Egypt,  as  we  are 
well  assured  it  was  not  by  many  hundreds  the  iast.  We  also  learn, 
that  women  were,  in  the  second  dynasty,  permitted  to  hold  the  impe- 
rial government;  an  institution  that  continued  intact  till  the  extinction 
of  the  Ptolemies  in  the  far-famed  Cleopatra  ; as  is  attested  all  through 
this  long  line  of  centuries  by  hieroglyphical  evidence. 

The  Lybians,  at  that  day,  were  tributary  to  Egypt;  and  we  are  in- 
formed, that  an  eclipse  of  the  moon  was  observed.  Works  oil  anat- 
omy and  medicine  were  written  by  two  kings  of  these  dynasties. 
It  may  be  inferred,  that  the  use  of  the  saw  in  cutting  large  stones, 
was  discovered  in  this  period — while  all  the  arts  and  sciences  of  the 
ancients  appear  to  have  been  in  full  development  and  use — but  oth- 
erwise, these  kings  gained  no  celebrity;  whence  we  may  infer,  that 
Egypt  was  peaceful,  happy,  and  prosperous,  during  the  dominion  of 
unambitious  kings. 


A long,  but  undefinable  interval,  from  Menes  to  tne  end  of  the  3rd 
Memphite  dynasty,  brings  us  to  the  4th,  and  (to  us)  tlie  most  im- 
portant of  all ; because  recent  discoveries  have  enabled  us  to  verify 
history  by  extraordinary  monumental  confirniatioi.6. 

We  are  all  well  acquainted  with  the  wonder  of  the  world — the 
eternal  pyramids,  whose  existence  astounds ourc  cdence — whose  anti- 
quity has  been  a dream — whose  epoch  is  a uystery.  What  monu- 
ments on  earth  have  given  rise  to  more  fabies,  speculations,  errors, 
illusions  and  misconceptions  ? 

The  subject  of  the  pyramids  is  so  vast,  as  not  to  be  condensible 
into  this  series  of  lectures;  but  those  who  feel  curious  to  know  the  pos- 
itive height,  length,  breadth,  areas,  cubic  contents,  &c.,  &c.  of  each 
of  these  lofty  monuments,  are  referred  to  the  great  work  of  Col.  H. 
Vyse,  who  expended  during  the  years  1837-38,  many  thousands  of 
pounds,  in  excavations  and  other  labors  in  these  edifices.  It  is  my 
intention  to  construct  a table,  which,  at  one  view,  shall  give  all  re- 
quisite details  ; and  then  it  will  afford  me  pleasure  to  devote  a special 
lecture  to  the  pyramids;  but  I am  prevented,  at  present,  from  so 
doing,  by  the  absence  of  the  most  important  vol.  of  Col.  Vyse’s 
work — the  3rd,  which  has  not  yet  reached  this  country  ; and  although 
I am  generally  acquainted  with  the  substance  of  its  contents,  hav- 
ing seen  many  of  the  calculations  in  manuscript,  and  witnessed 
the  labors  of  Mr.  Perring,  on  the  spot,  in  1839,  it  would  be  contrary 
to  the  principles  I have  laid  down,  (of  not  hazarding  statistical  asser- 
tions, without  being  able  to  produce  competent  authority,)  were  I 
now  to  enter  into  details. 

It  will  be  conceded,  that  a person  who,  like  myself,  has  resided  for 
years  in  constant  sight  of  these  Mausolea  ; who  has  spent  at  different 
intervals,  many  months  in  exploring  them,  and  their  vicinities — who 
has  ascended  the  great  pyramid  a score  of  time:-,  and  entered  fre. 
quently  into  all  the  chambers,  passages,  &c.,  of  the  others;  has  at 
least  had  an  opportunity  of  gleaning  some  knowledge  about  them. 
Since  therefore,  with  all  these  advantages,  I postpone  lecturing  on  the 
pyramids,  till  I possess  the  most  important  work  ever  published  on 
the  subject;  my  readers  will  appreciate  the  difficulty  of  the  appre 
hended  task,  when  even  I,  who  know  all  that  has  been  done,  fear  to 
mislead  others  by  premature  expositions.  On  every  subject  touched 
in  these  chapters  or  lectures,  the  latest  and  best  information  will  be 
produced  ; and  I would  rather  encounter  the  charge  of  ignorance  on 
the  pyramids,  than  that  of  abusing  the  confidence  with  which  my 
communications  are  so  indulgently  listened  to.* 

But,  if  I abstain  from  statistical  details  on  this  head,  there  are  some 
generalities,  proceeding  from  recent  discoveries  of  hieroglyphical 
names  &c,  in  the  pyramids,  that  are  invaluable  to  history  ; and  these 
I will  now  consider. 

It  is  sufficient  to  sweep  one’s  eye  along  themap,  suspended  above 
me  (a  rough  outline  of  which  I present  in  this  treatise)  from  Mem- 
phis to  Meroe — a distance  of  1500  miles — to  perceive  that  there  was 
a time  (and  that  prolonged  for  unnumbered  ages,  during  a remote 
period,)  when  pyramidal  constructions  were  in  vogue  in  the  valley 
of  the  Nile;  and  that  in  Egypt,  the  Memphite  pyramids  were  the 
sepulchres  of  kings,  does  not  any  longer  admit  of  a doubt. 

At  Memphis,  on  a line  extending  about  25  miles  from  the  most 
northern  to  the  most  southern  pyramid,  we  have  scattered  in  clus- 
ters, near  the  villages  Aboo-roo&sh,  Gheezeh,Abobseer,  Zaccdra,  and 
Dashobr,  about  25  pyramids,  or  pyramidal  tombs  of  various  con- 
struction, elevation  and  dimensions  ; of  which,  some  18  may  be 
termed  large, and  the  rest  small.  They  are  all  surrounded  with  count- 
less tombs,  pits,  excavations,  passages,  subterranean  works  and 
superficial  structures — all  exclusively  dedicated  to  the  dead — and,  if 
millions  of  mummies  have,  in  the  last  1500  years,  been  removed  and 
destroyed,  there  axe  millions  still  unmolested  in  that  burial  ground, 
to  attest  tlie  vast  population  of  ancient  Memphis.  Along  this  line 
is  the  Necropolis  of  a city,  that  ceased  to  exist  after  flourishing  for 
3000  years. 

The  pyramids  of  Ghebzeh  are  of  all  sizes,  from  the  largest  to  the 
smallest.  The  largest,  that  of  Shoopho,  is 

Feet— l»eiuht.  S$q.  ft.— base.  Cubic  ft.— masonry.  Tons— weight. 

450-9  746  89,028,000  6,848,000 

of  good  limestone ; cut  into  blocks,  varying  from  2 to  5 ft.  square 
— from  which  estimate  of  limestone,  however,  must  be  deducted  a 
large  mass  of  granite  blocks,  used  in  lining  the  interior — while  the 
amount  of  space  occupied  inside  by  chambers  and  passages,  is  only 
56,000  cubic  feet,  or  7 ^ of  the  whole  mass. 

The  smallest  of  the  9 at  Ghedzeh,  is  some  70  feet  high,  by  a square 
base  of  about  102  feet. 

The  remaining  pyramids  at  the  southward,  those  of  Aboosefer, 
Zaccitra  and  Dashobr,  may  be  roughly  estimated — the  smallest  about 
150,  and  the  largest,  about  350  feet  high — two  are  of  crude  brick. 

There  are  pyramids  at  other  places  in  Egypt.  Two  small  ones  at 
Lisht,  about  20  miles  beyond  Dashobr  ; and,  about  20  miles  further 
on,  that  of  Meymoon — called  “ the  false  pyramid” — two  of  crude 
brick,  and  the  vestiges  of  two  more  of  stone,  on  the  site  of  Lake 
Mceris  in  the  Fayobm — and  one  at  El-Qenitn,  above  Esnd.  The 
latter  are  all  small. 

* Even  since  this  lecture  was  delivered  at  Boston,  letters  from  Egypt  inform  me  that 
the  Prussian  scientific  mission,  under  the  enthusiastic  Leipsius,  hail,  in  December,  mad* 
several  valuable  discoveries  umong  these  stupendous  ruins  ; all  confirmatory  ot  ties 
views  herein  set  forth.  As  soon  as  the  details  arrive,  my  oral  lectures  will  contain  alt 
relative  information. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


55 


In  Ethiopia  there  are 


80  pyramids  at  “ Meroe” — sandstone, 
42  do.  at“Noori,”  “ 

17  do.  at  Gebel-Birka',  “ 


[square  base.] 

Maximum.  Minimum. 


60  feet.  20  feet. 

100  “ 20  “ 

88  “ 23  “ 


139  Pyramids  above  the  Nile  at  lat.  18. 

The  arch,  both  round  and  pointed,  is  coeval  with  the  era  of  these 
last  pyramids. 

For  all  that  is  hitherto  known  of  the  pyramids  of  Meroe,  I refer 
.o  that  valuable  work,  “ Travels  in  Ethiopia,  by  Hoskins — London, 
1835.”  The  facts  of  the  author  are  indisputable  ; but  some  of  his 
deductions  from  those  facts  are  often  erroneous,  especially  those 
whereby  he  would  prove  the  priority  of  Meroe.  Without  a special 
argument  on  the  subject,  it  would  be  impossible  to  establish  the  fal- 
lacy of  these  deductions — but  as  the  work  of  a gentleman,  a hierolo- 
gist  and  a scholar,  Mr.  Hoskins’s  book  is  full  of  merit.  I shall  touch 
on  some  of  the  deductions  I draw  from  the  same  data,  anon. 

It  would  be  vain  to  detail  all  the  nonsense,  that,  from  time  immemorial, 
has  been  written  on  the  pyramids  of  Memphis,  which,  by  some,  have 
been  considered  antediluvian  ; although  two  of  the  most  ancient  being 
built  of  sunburnt  brick,  could  not  have  endured  the  waves  of  the 
Deluge  for  a single  month.  Others  have  ascribed  their  erection  to 
giants  or  genii : they  were  said  to  inclose  the  impenetrable  secrets 
of  mystic  demonomania,  or  to  have  been  built  for  the  mysteries  of 
initiation.  Again,  they  were  supposed  to  have  been  erected  for  as- 
tronomical purposes.  Then,  it  has  been  mathematically  demonstrated, 
that  they  were  built  to  “ square  the  circle  they  are  said  to  have 
stood  over  reservoirs  to  purify  the  muddy  waters  of  the  inundation; 
to  have  served  as  the  sepulchres  of  entire  royal  families,  or  for 
masses  of  population.  In  short,  each  speculation  has  exceeded  its 
predecessor  in  absurdity,  excepting  when  confined  to  the  objects  of 
ustronomy  and  sepulture.  With  respect  to  their  having  served  astro- 
nomical purposes,  (though  no  harm  can  proceed  from  such  an  hypo- 
thesis,) it  is  refuted,  1st.  By  their  extraordinary  variety  and  number ; 
and  2ud,  in  Ethiopia,  by  their  fronts  facing  all  points  of  the  compass, 
from  N.E.  to  S.E.  3rd.  In  Egypt,  from  the  measurements  made  in 
1839,  by  Mr.  Perring,  which  demonstrate  that  the  inclinations  of  the 
passages,  as  well  as  the  relative  position  of  each  pyramid,  vary  so  as 
to  destroy  all  conformity  to  mathematical  or  astronomical  purposes. 
These  proofs  against  their  astronomical  utility,  are  independent  of  the 
voluminous  evidences  to  be  gleaned  from  history,  and  from  a glance 
at  the  monuments  themselves — their  localities,  and  associations, 
which  declare  their  sepulchral  design.  If,  as  Sir  John  Herschell 
observes,  the  inclined  passage  into  the  largest  pyramid  of  Ghedzeh, 
(which  could  never,  at  the  time  of  its  building,  have  been  pointed  at 
the  Polar  star,  that  is,  at  a Ursae  Minoris)  was  made  at  an  angle  to 
correspond  to  a Draconis  ; this  pyramid  must  have  been  built  about 
the  year  B.  C.  2123,  which  alone  would  suffice  to  upset  Usher’s 
epoch  of  the  Deluge,  2348  B.  C. — because,  225  years  would  be  too 
brief  a period  for  the  Caucasian  children  of  Ham,  to  migrate  from 
Asia  into  Egypt,  there  to  acquire  arts,  sciences,  and  writing ; to 
erect  first  several  pyramids,  and  then  build  the  one  which  is  now  the 
largest.  Their  knowledge  of  astronomy  must  have  been  great  in- 
deed, and  the  study  of  the  heavens  a primary  object  in  life,  to  have 
caused  them  to  conceive,  and  then  to  execute  works  (one  of  which 
consumed  6,848,000  tons  of  cut  stone,  brought  15  miles  from  the 
quarry,)  the  object  of  which  would  have  been  to  point  a passage  63 
feet  long,  to  such  an  insignificant  little  star  as  a draconis.  And, 
why  did  they  build  some  25  pyramids  ? or  erect  at  least  two  after 
the  construction  of  the  largest? 

The  greatest  astronomer  of  the  age,  Sir  John  Herschell,  after  in- 
specting the  tables,  (accurately  determined  for  the  first  time  by  Col. 
Vyse,  and  his  cooperaiors  in  1838)  declares — Vyse,  2nd — 108:  “No 
other  astronomical  relation  can  be  drawn  from  the  tables  containing 
the  angles  and  dimensions  of  the  passages  ; for  although  they  all 
point  within  5 degrees  of  the  pole  of  the  heavens,  they  differ  too 
much  and  too  irregularly  to  admit  of  any  conclusions.” 

“ The  exterior  angles  of  the  buildings  are  remarkably  uniform ; 
but  the  angle  52°  is  not  connected  with  any  astronomical  fact,  and 
was  probably  adopted  for  architectural  reasons.” 

The  opinion  of  their  astronomical  utility  may  be  set  down  as  now 
exploded  in  Europe  ; while,  in  Egypt,  the  idea  causes  a smile  of 
surprise,  that  any  one  should  have  taken  the  trouble  seriously  to  in- 
quire into  the  subject.  I am  very  far  from  questioning  the  antiquity 
of  astronomy,  or  doubting  the  knowledge  of  that  science  in  Egypt : 
for  Diodorus,  i.,  28,  expressly  says  : “ It  is  indeed  supposed,  that  the 
Chaldeans  of  Babylon,  being  an  Egyptian  colony,  arrived  at  their 
celebrity  in  astrology,  in  consequence  of  what  they  derived  from  the 
priests  of  Egypt.”  The  Babylonish  method  of  dividing  the  year 
was  the  same  as  the  Egyptian,  and  can  be  traced  positively  back  to 
B.  C.  720 — but,  although  we  know  from  Chron.,  ii.,  31,  32,  and  Kings, 
ii.,  20,  12,  that,  about  the  year  700  B.  C.,  Babylonian  astronomers 
visited  Jerusalem ; yet,  it  is  allowed  by  the  best  mathematicians, 
that  the  epoch  of  the  Chaldean  tables  ascends  to  the  year  2234, 
wnich  is  only  114  years  after  Usher  s Deluge  '. 

If  the  Chaldeans  derived  astronomy  from  Egypt,  the  fact  would 
prove  that  this  science  was  known  at  the  time  of  Menes,  if  not 
befoic,  ur.d  confirm  al!  I have  said  of  the  antiquity  of  the  sothic 


period.  Astronomy  was,  without  question,  an  auvanced  science  to 
the  people,  who  could  erect  pyramids  on  the  scale  of  those  at  Mem- 
phis ; but  it  does  seem  ridiculous  and  supererogatory,  after  the  uses 
we  know  the  Egyptians  made  of  these  edifices,  to  speculate  upon  the 
relations  these  kingly  tombs  may  have  had  to  the  stars.  They  are  all 
tombs,  and  nothing  else.  Kings  were  buried  in  them,  and  perhaps 
queens.  In  some  (the  pyramid  of  five  steps,  at  Zacchra,  for  instance) 
other  persons  have  also  been  buried  besides  the  rnonarcli ; probably 
members  of  the  royal  family,  or  of  the  royal  household. 

If  much  labor  has  been  wasted  in  guessing  at  the  objects  of  the 
pyramids,  still  more  has  been  thrown  away  in  crude  fancies  as  to 
their  epoch,  or  their  builders.  Poor  Herodotus,  and  his  copyist  Dio- 
dorus, themselves  misunderstanding  the  accounts  received  from  the 
priests,  have  been  the  cause  of  the  greatest  misconception  on  the 
part  of  their  successors.  The  Greeks,  who  were  correct  in  the  names, 
lost  themselves  completely  in  anachronisms,  when  they  pretended 
to  define  the  epoch.  While,  although  the  learned  Calmet  and  other 
Hebraists  and  travellers,  have  traced  their  origin  to  Moses  and  Aaron, 
and  have  wept  over  the  supposed  aggravation  of  the  labors  of  the 
Jews,  employed  as  forced  laborers  in  erecting  some  of  these  pyra- 
mids ; it  is  satisfactory  to  be  able  to  deduce  from  the  unerring  hiero- 
glyphics, that  every  Memphite  pyramid  was  erected  at  least  four 
centuries  before  Abraham,  and  that  the  Hebrews  had  nothing  to  do 
with  them,  except  to  look  at  them  from  the  opposite  shore  of  the 
Nile.  The  erection  of  the  pyramids  at  Memphis  alone,  w'ould  take 
a longer  time  than  the  entire  sojourn  of  the  Jews  in  Egypt ; and  even 
supposing  it  were  proved  that  the  Hebrews  had  assisted  in  the  erection 
of  some  of  those  at  Memphis,  how  did  the  Egyptians  dispense  with 
their  services,  or  whom  did  they  employ,  in  erecting  those  in  the 
Fayoom  ? or  in  Upper  Egypt?  or  those  one  hundred  and  thirty-nine 
pyramids  1500  miles  up  the  Nile,  on  the  plains  of  Meroe,  in  Ethiopia  ? 

The  Jewish  theory  in  connection  with  the  pyramids  is  also  ex 
ploded,  and  we  now  proceed  to  show  that,  as  the  whole  of  those  of 
Memphis  were  built  between  Menes  and  the  accession  of  the  lGth 
dyn.,  in  B.  C.  2272,  these  monuments  antedate  the  era  of  Moses  by 
at  least  800  to  1000  years. 

Our  text-book,  Manetho,  informs  us  that  Venephes,  the  third  king 
from  Menes  (whom  we  may  conjecture  occupied  the  throne  within 
a hundred  years  from  that  monarch,)  erected  the  pyramids  near  Cn- 
chome,  or  Choe,  or  Cochoma.  This  shows,  historically,  the  antiquity 
of  pyramidal  constructions. 

1 would  casually  remark,  that  the  Great  Sphinx,  whose  mutilated 
features  have  given  rise  to  so  many  discussions,  although  situated 
amid  the  pyramids  of  Ghedzeh,  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  epoch  of 
the  pyramids ; for,  as  I shall  show  hereafter,  that  great  work  belongs 
to  a much  later  period — to  the  18th  Theban  dynasty,  not  earlier  than 
B.  C.  1800,  or  several  centuries  after  the  cessation  of  pyramidal  con 
structions.  In  due  course,  we  shall  arrive  at  this  subject. 

We  pass  over  the  2nd  and  3rd  dynasties,  and  begin  with  the  4th 
Memphite  dynasty  of  8,  or  according  to  another  reading,  of  17  kings. 


MANETHO’S  FOURTH  DYNASTY 
of  eight  (or  seventeen)  Memphite  kings  of  a different  race. 

1 —  Soris  reigned  29  years. 

2 —  Suphis  reigned  63  years.  He  built  the  largest  pyramid,  which 

Herodotus  says  was  constructed  by  Cheops.  He  was 
arrogant*  toward  the  gods,  and  wrote  the  sacred  book, 
which  is  regarded  by  the  Egyptians  as  a work  of  great 
importance. 

3 —  Suphis  reigned  66  years. 

4 —  Mcncheres  “ 63  “ 

5 —  Rhatoeses  “ 25  “ 

6 —  Bicheris  “ 22  “ 

7 —  Sebercheres“  7 “ 

8 —  Thampthis  “ 9 “ 


Altogether,  284  years. 

The  first  king  of  this  4th  dynasty  is  termed  by  Manetho,  Sor  s. 

In  one  of  the  innumerable  ancient  tombs  that  are  in  the  Necropolis 
of  Memphis  (fragments  of  which  are  now  in  the  British  Museum,) 
the  following  name  occurs ; the  first  of  a succession  of  four  kings, 
whose  names,  it  will  be  seen  in  the  sequel,  correspond  to  the  his- 
torical lists. 

This  name  reads,  as  it  stands,  Re-sh-o.  By  meta- 
thesis, we  are  allowed  to  transpose  the  disk  of  the  sun 
from  the  top,  where  it  was  placed  out  oi  respect  to  the 
deity,  to  the  bottom,  and  then  it  reads  Sh-o-re.  The 
Greeks  could  not,  by  any  combination  of  their  alpha, 
bet,  express  the  articulation  sh;  so  they  were  obliged 
to  write  the  name  with  an  S,  while  the  tcimination  S 
is  a Greek  addition  to  euphonize  those  Eastern  names 
they  were  pleased  to  term  barbarian : so  that  Soris  in 
Greek,  was  Shore  in  Egyptian,  designating  one  and  the  same  peison. 


* The  obvious  inconsistency  in  this  passiee.  proceeds  Drobaldv  from  some 
error  of  transcription  in  Manetho  s test.  Heroaotus  aiso  speaas  disparagingly  of  Cheops 
I advert  to  this  point,  to  express  my  conviction,  that  in  the  construction  of  tins  and  ot 
all  the  other  pyramids,  there  was  neither  cruelty  to  the  laborers  employed ; nor,  beyond 
tit  ■ n agnltude  of  the  undertaking,  is  there  any  reason  to  deem  the  erection  of  these 
mu  oleums  to  have  been  productive  of  inconvenience  to  the  country,  or  contrary  to 
the  institution*  of  that  ancient,  though  peculiar  nation. 


56 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


The  meaning  of  Suo-Re  is,  “ Pharaoh  dominator,”  or  the  “ presiding 
6un.” 

In  the  list  of  Eratosthenes,  the  13th  Theban  king  is  Rauosis, 
translated  by  him  arehicrator,  or  “chief  of  the  mighty,”  which  cor- 
responds to  the  meaning  of  Shore  ; now,  if  we  read  the  name  Shore, 
it  corresponds  in  sound,  in  construction,  and  in  signification,  to  Ma- 
netho’s Soris ; or,  if  we  read  it  Reslio,  it  corresponds  in  sound,  in 
construction,  and  in  signification,  to  the  Rauosis  of  Eratosthenes. 
In  both  historians,  Shore  or  Reslio  precedes  the  names  of  kings  who 
immediately  follow  him  in  the  hieroglyphical  succession  found  in 
the  tombs  about  the  pyramids ; while,  from  the  name  having  been 
found  in  it,  there  is  every  probability  that  he  built  the  north  pyramid 
of  Abooseer.  That  which,  however,  is  at  this  moment  speculative, 
derives  infinite  corroboration  from  what  follows ; as  all  the  circum- 
stances that  justify  the  antiquity  of  the  one,  attend  on  the  position 
of  the  others. 

The  second  king,  according  to  Manetho,  of  the  4th  Memphite 
dynasty,  was  Suphis,  who  built  the  largest  pyramid,  which  by  Hero- 
dotus was  said  to  have  been  constructed  by  Cheops.  These  are 
Manetho’s  words.  In  the  succession  found,  as  said  before,  among 
the  tombs  at  Memphis,  the  next  king  who  follows  is — 

Siioopho,  whom  the  Greeks  called  Suphis  the  1st. 
Eratosthenes  gives  as  1 5th  Theban  king,  Saophis  1st. 
He  translates  Saophis  by  comatus,  meaning  “ many- 
haired.” Now,  in  Coptic,  Shoo  means  many,  and 
tho,  hair.  It  was  conjectured,  fourteen  years  ago, 
that  this  cartouche  must  represent  the  name  of  the 
builder  of  the  great  pyramid ; having  been  found  in 
so  many  places,  and  most  numerously  in  the  ancient 
tombs  about  the  Memphite  pyramids  at  Gheezeh,  &c. 
We  had  the  authority  of  Manetho,  that  his  king,  Suphis  1st,  was  the 
same  as  the  Cheops  of  Herodotus,  who  built  the  great  pyramid  ; 
and,  philologically,  in  meaning  and  in  sound,  we  identified  this  car- 
touche with  the  Saophis  of  Eratosthenes;  but  it  is  curious  to  see 
the  beautiful  chain  of  connection  that  reconciles  ail  differences,  and 
it  will  give  a distinct  idea  of  the  analectical  process  by  which  hier- 
ologists  demonstrate  their  theorems,  to  expound  it. 

The  sign  in  hieroglyphics,  may  be  read  in  two  ways — 1st, 

it  is  equiva§^\§$3  lent  to  the  Coptic  letter  jtt  — Slid — which  is 
our  SH  ; 2nd.  it  is  equivalent  to  the  Coptic  letter  T 

Khei, — which,  is  our  KH.,  hard  and  guttur  al.  The  hiero- 

glyphical  letter  s therefore  either  Sh,  or  Kh.  f”' 

The  Greeks  had  not  in  their  alphabet  of  24  letters,  the  power  of 
expressing  the  Sh  of  foreign  languages,  and  were  therefore  obliged 
to  transmute  the  sound  as  nearly,  as  to  the  car  of  the  writer  this  urti- 
culation  could  be  conveyed — that  is,  sometimes  by — a 

S — Xi — as  in  — Xerxes,  whose  name  in  the  arrowhead,  or 

Cuneiform  (ancient  Persian)  character,  as  well  as  in  hieroglyphics, 

was“KHSHEERSH.”  Or  by  a 
X — Sigma — as  in  Manetho’s  Eoi^io  Suphis.  Or  by  a 
X — Chi — as  in  Herodotus’  Xioiroa,  pronounced  in  Greek  Hheeopos, 

but  by  us — Cheops. 

We  are  thus  enabled  etymologically  to  reduce,  Suphis,  Saophis, 
Cheops,  to  one  and  the  same  name,  spelt  differently,  and  thus  recon- 
cile Manetho,  Eratosthenes,  and  Herodotus. 

We  now  cut  off  the  Greek  termination  of  S,  or  is,  with  which  they 
endeavored  to  soften  down  to  a Grecian  ear  the  rigidities  of  foreign 
names ; 

“ Like  our  harsh  noi  'hern,  whistling,  grunting,  guttural. 

Which  we’re  obliged  to  hiss  and  spit  and  sputter  all.” 

The  result  of  our  reduction  is  to  obtain  in  Greek,  in  Coptic,  and 
in  hieroglyphics,  the  name  of  Sooph,  Shooph,  or  Khooph,  as  the  name 
of  the  king  who  built  the  great  pyramid — corroborated  by  Murtady, 
an  Arab  author— who  says  that  in  his  day,  tradition  in  Egypt  still 
ascribed  the  erection  of  that  pyramid  to  “ Soyoof.” 

Thus  much  was  known  up  to  1837 — but  the  anti-Champollionists 
looked  with  disdain  upon  a science,  which  could  not  produce  from 
the  pyramid  itself,  confirmation  of  its  unerring  value  ; and  confidently 
declaring,  that  there  were  “no  hieroglyphics  in  the  pyramids,” (al- 
though all  antiquity  asserts  the  contrary,)  they  vauntingly  challenged 
the  hierologists  to  prove,  that  hieroglyphical  writing  was  known  at 
the  date  of  the  pyramids — these  gentlemen,  forsooth,  having  already 
decreed,  that  “ hieroglyphic  writing  was  a subsequent  invention,” 
and  that  letters  were  derived  from  the  Hebrews,  or  from  the  Greeks, 
or,  at  least,  from  the  Phoenicians. 

But  some  things  were  written  before  Moses  wrote  ; and  some 
heroes  lived  before  Agamemnon  : 

Vixere  fortes  ante  Agamemnon.— Horace. 

In  the  year  1837,  the  munificent  Col.  Howard  Vyse  set  all  doubts 
nt  rest,  by  finding  Shoopho  (and  his  variation)  in  the  quarrier’s 
marks,  in  the  new  chamber  of  the  great  pyramid,  scored  in  red  ochre 
in  hieroglyphics  on  the  rough  stones  ; and  thus,  by  confirming  history 
and  the  sculptures,  he  has  immortalized  his  own  labors,  and  silenced 
the  cavillers. 

It  will  now  be  seen  that  my  diffidence,  when  declining  to  enter 
copiouslv  into  so  vast  a subject  as  the  pyramids,  without  possessing 


the  3rd  vol.  of  Vyse’s  work,  is  not  uncalled  for;  suffice  it  at  present 
to  observe,  that  with  the  era  of  the  great  pyramid,  (whenever  that  re- 
mote epoch  was,)  long  before  the  year  2272,  B.C. — long  before  Usher’s 
date  of  the  Deluge  2348  B.  C. — ages  previous  to  Abraham — centu- 
ries prior  to  the  Jews — and  many  generations  anterior  to  the  Hvk- 
shos  ; every  hieroglyphical  legend,  or  genealogical  table,  as  well  as 
all  Egyptian  local  circumstances  will  be  found  to  correspond,  and 
harmonize — and  yet,  in  that  day,  Egypt  was  not  a new  country,  or 
its  inhabitants  a nexo  people 

A papyrus  now  in  Europe,  of  the  date  of  Shoopho,  establishes  the 
early  use  of  written  documents,  and  the  antiquity  of  paper,  made  of 
the  byblus. 

The  tombs  around  the  pyramids  afford  us  abundance  of  sculptural  $ 
and  pictorial  illustrafmn  of  manners  and  customs,  and  attest  the 
height  to  which  civilization  had  attained  in  his  day.  While,  in  one 
of  them,  a hieroglyphical  legend*  tells  us,  that  this  is  “ the  sepulchre 
of  Eimei — great  priest  of  the  habitations  of  King  Shoopho.”  This  is 
probably  that  of  the  architect,  according  to  whose  plans  and  direc- 
tions, the  mighty  edifice — near  the  foot  of  which  he  once  reposed — 
the  largest,  best  constructed,  most  ancient,  and  most  durable  of 
Mausolea  in  the  world,  was  built ; and  which,  from  4000  to  5000 
years  after  his  decease,  still  stands  an  imperishable  record  of  his  skill. 

Shoopho’s  name  is  also  found  in  the  Thebaid,  as  the  date  of  a 
tomb  at  Chenoboscion.  In  the  peninsula  of  Mount  Sinai,  his  name 
and  tablets  show,  that  the  copper  mines  of  that  Arabian  district  were 
worked  for  him.  Above  his  name  the  titles  “ pure  King  and  sacred 
Priest”  are  in  strict  accordance  with  Asiatic  institutions,  wherein 
the  chief  generally  combines  in  his  own  person  the  attributes  of 
temporal  and  spiritual  dominion.  His  royal  golden  signet  has  been 
discovered  since  I left  Egypt,  and  is  now  in  the  collection  of  my 
friend  Doct.  Abbott,  of  Cairo.  The  sculptures  of  the  Memphito 
Necropolis  inform  us,  that  Memphis  once  held  a palace  called  “the 
abode  of  Shoopho.” 

If  these  facts  be  not  sufficient — if  it  be  still  maintained,  that  Shoo, 
pho,  who  employed  100,000  men  for  20  years,  in  erecting  a monu- 
ment, for  which  10  preceding  years  were  requisite  merely  to  prepare 
the  materials,  and  the  causeway  whereon  the  stone  was  to  be  carried 
— a pyramid  of  limestone  blocks,  quarried  on  the  eastern  side  of  the 
Nile,  while  the  edifice  was  raised  some  20  mile3  off,  on  the  western 
side  of  the  river — the  former  base  of  which  was  once  7G4  feet  each 
face — the  original  height  480  feet — containing  89,028,000  cubic  feet 
of  solid  masonry,  and  6,848,000  tons  of  stone — if  Shoopho  performed 
all  these  works,  is  it  in  common  sense,  I ask,  to  doubt  his  power,  or 
that  he  ruled  all  over  Egypt  ? 

But  if,  rejecting  all  these  evidences,  and  the  testimony  of  Eratos- 
thenes that  he  was  likewise  a Theban  king — the  impracticability  of 
his  being  contemporary  with  any  other  Egyptian  king  be  not  suffi- 
ciently proven  ; and  that  Shoopho  was  merely  a petty  king  of  Mem- 
phis be  still  asserted,  let  me  propound  the  following  query  : 

How  is  it,  that  the  great  pyramid  is  lined  with  the  most  beautiful 
and  massive  blocks  of  syenite — of  red  granite,  not  one  particle  of 
which  exists  25  miles  below  the  1st  Cataract  of  the  Nile  at  Aswin, 
distant  640  miles  up  the  river  from  the  pyramid  ? that  blocks  of  this 
syenite  are  found  in  this  pyramid’s  chambers  and  passages  of  such 
dimensions  and  built  into  such  portions  of  the  masonry,  that  they 
must  evidently  have  been  placed  there,  before  the  upper  limestone 
masonry  was  laid  above  the  granite  ? and,  that  the  name  of  Shoopho, 
in  hieroglyphics,  is  found  in  that  central  interior,  written  on  the  super- 
jacent limestone  blocks  ; where  the  latter  layers  must,  in  the  order  of 
building,  have  been  placed  after  the  granite  had  been  covered  up 
below  ? 

There  not  being  in  its  native  state  a speck  of  granite  to  be  found  in 
Egypt,  25  miles  below  the  1st  Cataract,  its  existence  in  the  pyramid 
distant  640  miles  from  the  quarries,  is  a final  proof,  that  Shoopho 
ruled  from  Memphis  to  Aswhn — from  “ Migdol  to  the  tower  of 
Syene.” 

For  my  own  part,  I see  no  plausible  doubts  why  his  dominion 
may  not  have  been,  like  that  of  his  successors,  much  more  extensive 
than  over  Egypt  proper — especially  toward  Lybia  and  Nigritia. 

The  3rd  King  of  the  4th  Dynasty  is — 

Suphis  2rd — 3d  King  of  the  4th  Memphite  Dynasty — Manetho. 

Saophis  2nd,  or  Sensaophis+-16th  King  of  Thebes — Eratosthenes  ; 
corresponding  to  the  Chephren,  brother  of  Cheops,  who,  according 
to  Herodotus  and  Diodorus,  built  a pyramid  ; which,  we  may  infer, 
was  the  second  pyramid  of  Gheezeh,  seeing  that  we  know  histori- 
cally and  monumentally  the  builders  of  the  first  and  third.  We  also 
know  he  washing  both  of  Thebes  and  Memphis.  Of  this  king  Che- 
phren, nothing  has  yet  been  gleaned  from  the  pyramid  attributed  to 
him — but,  philological  analogies  can  reduce  all  these  names  into  one. 

I will  not  detain  the  reader  with  some  doubts  arising  from  hierogly- 
phical variations  in  one  or  two  cartouches  of  these  times  ; although 
they  are  curious,  and  I can  explain  them,  at  least  to  my  own  satis- 
faction ; but  pass  on  to  say,  that  in  the  absence  of  positive  pyramidal 
data,  I feel  inclined  to  adopt  the  following  oval,  as  probably  contain- 
ing the  name  of  Chephren  : 


* See  L’Hotes  letters— Paris,  1833. 

1 t Seu-suuums  is  an  error  m Hour's  Synrelius. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


Re  Reshaph — Reshef — Reshoof  or  Rekhooph, 
or 

sh  Shafre — Shephre — Shoophre  or  Khephre, 
ph  now 

Shephre — corresponds  to  Chephre-n, 

Khephre  “ “ K-t<f>pri-v. 

Besides  being  found  in  the  Necropolis  of  Memphis  and  in  a genea- 
logical series,  that  places  him  as  a Memphite  king  of  the  same  epoch 
ns=Shoopho,  this  oval  is  always  accompanied  by  titles,  that  contain, 
among  other  signs,  that  of  a pyramid. 

But  no  doubt  hangs  around  the  name  of  the  following  monarch, 
and  nothing  can  any  longer  render  his  identity  with  the  builder  of 
the  3rd  pyramid,  a subject  of  controversy : 

Manetho 4th  King  of  “ Memphite  Dynasty” — Mencheres, 

Eratosthenes — 17th  King  of  Thebes — “ Heliodotus” — Moscheres, 

Diodorus — as  commencer  of  a “third  pyramid” — Mykerincs, 

Herodotus — a£  erector  of  a “ smaller  pyramid” — Mykerinus. 

The  fragment  of  the  royal  Mummy-Case  (now  in  the  British  mu- 
seum) which  the  Arabs,  on  forcing  a passage  into  the  3rd  pyramid, 
(at  the  time  of  the  Caliphate,  COO  Hegira,  or  about  650  years  ago, 
according  to  Edrisi,)  had  thrown  aside  on  a heap  of  rubbish,  after 
destroying  the  mummy  : presented  to  the  researches  of  Col.  Vyse, 
in  1837,  The  following  oval  as  the  glorious  reward  of  his  labors  : 

MENKARE ; 

Re  j men  And  thus  again  is  history  authenticated  by 
i the  monuments  even  in  the  meaning  of  Era- 

men  | Ka  tosthenes,  who  translates  Mencheres  by  Helio- 

i dotus — for  the  oval  of  Menkare  will  bear  the 

Ka  j Re  acceptation  of  “ offerings  beloved  by  or  dedi- 
cated to  the  sun.”  The  same  arguments,  even 
to  the  granite,  will  apply  to  Menkare  that  have 
£^biHd7ed  Shoopho’s  dominion  all  over  Egypt.  This  oval  is  well 
known  at  the  copper  mines  of  Wadde-Magkra,  and  has  been  found 
in  other  places  in  the  vicinity  of  Memphis. 

Out  of  eight  kings,  of  the  fourth  Memphite  Dynasty,  whose  names 
have  been  preserved  by  Manctho,  and  corroborated  by  other  histo- 
rians, (three  Pharaohs,  who  were  connected  with  the  building  of  the 
three’  largest  pyramids  of  Gheezeh,  being  among  them)  the  hiero. 
glyphics  enable  us  to  indicate,  four  with  precision,  and  two  with  in- 
controvertible evidence,  viz : 

Shore — Soris. 

Shoopho— Cheops,  or  Suphis  1st,  found  in  the  pyramid. 

Shephre — Chephren.  (jQ> 

Menkare — Mencheres. 

Who  twenty-five  years  ago,  could  have  expected  such  wonderful 
confirmations  of  the  unerring  application  of  Champollion  s discove- 
ries ? Who  will  now  assert,  that  hieroglyphic  writing  was  not  known 
in  the  time  of  the  pyramids  ? 

Here  for  the  present  may  rest  our  verification  of  ancient  history, 
and  our  application  of  hieroglyphical  tests  in  connection  with  the 
pyramids.  There  are  many  ovals  of  kings,  (whom  we  term  “ un- 
placed,” because  we  do  not  know  where  exactly  to  insert  them  in 
our  chronological  list)  who  belong  to  the  time  of  Shoopho,  as  his 
predecessors  or  successors — some  found  at  the  Necropolis  of  Mem- 
phis—others  elsewhere ; and,  although  we  cannot  identify  them 
with  historical  names,  or  say  which  pyramid  is  the  tomb  of  any  of 
them,  yet  there  seems  every  probability,  arguing  from  that  which  has 
been  done  already,  what  may  be  eventually  accomplished,  that 
much  new  light  will  be  thrown  on  them  to  add  more  confirmatory 
facts  to  the  view  herein  taken.  Those  who  have  made  a study  of 
hieroglyphics,  are  perfectly  certain  that  future  discoveries  can  but 
confirm  the  past,  and  extend  the  present  boundaries  of  our  knowledge. 

In  chronological  order,  and  in  number  of  kings,  these  “ unplaced 
Pharaohs,”  go  wonderfully  to  confirm  Manetho.  Besides  finding 
the  names  of  the  builders  of  the  pyramids  of  Gheezeh,  it  must  be 
considered  that  there  are,  between  large  and  small,  some  twenty-five 
pyramids  and  pyramidal  tombs  in  the  cemetery  of  Memphis.  Sup- 
pose each  of  them  to  have  contained  the  sepulchre  of  one  monarch, 
(and  all  proofs  confirm  this  view)  the  number  of  kings’  tombs,  when 
we  make  allowance  for  some  nionarchs  who  may  not  have  thought 
it  incumbent  on  themselves  to  erect  such  a mausoleum,  strangely 
corroborates  the  number  of  sovereigns  comprised  in  the  early  Mem- 
phite dynasties  of  Manetho  ; for  he  gives  about  thirty-two  kings,  and 
here  we  find  some  twenty-five  pyramidal  resting  places  for  them. 

It  is  recorded,  that  it  took  30  years  to  build  the  largest — the  tomb 
of  Shoopho ; which  is  not  at  all  an  exaggerated  view  of  the  necessary 
time.  There  are  about  10  others,  none  of  which  could  well  have 
been  built  in  less  than  20  years.  The  remainder  may  have  occnpied 
from  3 to  10  years  each. 

Then  - 1 X 30  - - - 30 

» . . 10  X 20  - - 200 

” . . 13  X say  average  5 years,  65 

295,  or  about  300  years, 
supposing  they  were  built  consecutively  (and  such  must  have  been 
the  method,  since  they  are  the  sepulchres  or  consecutive  kings,)  for 


the  actual  time  required  merely  for  their  erection.  Now,  suppos- 
ing that  of  Manetho’s  32  Memphite  monarehs,  only  20  erected 
pyramids,  and  allow  the  average  of  22J  yeafs  as  the  mean  length  of 
reigns,  or  kingly  generations,  we  obtain  at  once  450  years  ; when, 
if  we  consider,  that  a few  years  may  have  intervened  before  each 
individual  king  decided  on  building  a pyramid  ; and  that,  in  some 
cases,  the  tomb  may  have  been  finished  before  the  monarch’s  demise 
— for,  in  Egypt,  people  built  their  sepulchres  during  their  own  life, 
time — we  shall  find  that  between  Menes  and  the  16th  dynasty,  443 
years  are  not  too  much  time  to  allow  for  edifices,  the  mere  building 
of  which  must  have  occupied  some  300  years. 

Now,  all  these  works  had  been  completed,  and  pyramidal  con- 
structions had  ceased  to  be  fashionable,  in  Egypt,  long  prior  to  the 
accession  of  the  16th  dynasty,  or  B.  C.  2272  ; and  yet  they  were  all 
built  after  Menes.  When,  therefore,  we  allow  only  443  years’  in- 
terval for  all  the  events  between  Menes  and  the  16th  dynasty,  it  will 
be  conceded  that  we  are  within  the  mark,  possibly  by  several  cen- 
turies ; but,  in  the  absence  of  positive  data,  I prefer  not  to  disturb 
the  view  of  chronology  herein  taken — which  places  Menes  about 
equidistant  between  the  Flood  on  the  Septuagint  version,  and  the 
accession  of  the  16th  dynasty.  Yet,  I will  confess  my  inability  to 
adopt  this  arrangement  as  a permanent  one  ; for  if  any  adequate 
authority  were  to  add  1000  years  to  the  Septuagint,  there  are  ma- 
terials to  fill  the  space.  As  for  reduction  of  my  system  to  a narrower 
limit,  it  cannot  be  done,  without  abandoning  facts,  reason,  logical 
deduction,  and  truth  itself.  To  bring  the  case  home  : how  many 
years  has  it  taken  to  construct  the  “ Monument  at  Bunker  Hill,” 
Boston;  the  “ Merchants’  Exchange,”  or  the  “ Custom-House,”  at 
New  York?  It  may  be  objected,  that  unforeseen  impediments  re- 
tarded the  progress  of  the  work,  in  one  or  all  of  these  instances. 
It  may  well  be  supposed,  therefore,  that  similar  delays  took  place  in 
the  construction  of  the  25  Memphite  pyramids,  which  will  equalize 
the  comparison.  In  point  of  perfection  of  masonry,  these  American 
edifices  are  not  superior  to  the  work  in  the  pyramids — while,  in  point 
of  cubic  feet  of  stone,  if  the  materials  of  all  these  were  put  together, 
they  would  not  construct  the  least  of  the  largest  ten  pyramids  in  the 
Necropolis  of  Memphis ! We  can  thus  form  an  estimate  of  the 
time  it  must  have  taken  to  erect  them  ; and  may  be  prepared  for 
the  assertion  that  a period  of  300  years  is  within  the  mark  for  the 
pyramidal  works  existing,  at  the  present  day,  to  attest  the  antiquity 
of  Memphis  ; the  territorial  dominion,  and  consequent  power — and 
uncontemporaneousness — of  her  early  Pharaohs  ; and  the  wealth, 
the  population  and  the  wonderful  progress,  at  that  remote  era, 
already  made  in  all  arts  and  sciences  by  the  Egypto-Caucasians  ; aa 
well  as  the  imperious  necessity  for  a more  extended  chronology  than 
the  Hebrew  version.  It  may  be  remarked,  that  some  pyramids  at 
Memphis — those  of  Aboorooksh,  Aboosebr,  Zacckra,  and  Dashobr — 
appear  to  be  much  older  than  even  the  Great  Pyramid  of  Shoopho. 
This  circumstance  corroborates  Manetho,  wherein  he  says,  that 
Venephes,  4th  king  of  1st  dynasty,  “ raised  pyramids  at  Cochome 
whereby  we  learn  from  history  that  pyramidal  constructions  were  in 
use  many  generations  before  Suphis-Cheops,  or  Shoopho.  Nor  does 
it  seem  probable,  that  Shoopho  would  have  erected  such  an  enormous 
pile  as  the  largest,  if  he  had  not  wished  to  outdo  all  his  predecessors. 
We  know,  that  two  pyramids — the  second  and  third — were  con. 
structed  after  that  of  Shoopho  ; and  if  they  did  not  equal  his  in 
gigantic  dimensions,  both  of  them  hud  peculiar  merits  of  their  own, 
to  equalize  the  apparent  difference,  in  the  grandeur  of  the  concep- 
tion, and  the  relative  ,aoor  oi  execution — one  having  been  coated 
with  stucco,  the  other  cased  with  gramte  brought  from  Syene. 

Memphis  is,  therefore,  historically  and  monumentally,  the  oldest 
city,  and  it  lies  in  Lower  Egypt.  I will  hereafter  explain,  why 
Thebes  is  historically  coeval  with,  perhaps  anterior  to  Memphis, 
though,  monumentally  speaking,  it  is  inferior  in  antiquity.  It  would 
be  tedious  to  proffer  a special  argument,  whereby  we  can  prove  that, 


Tanis — the  “ Tzolian"  of  Scripture, 
Pelusium, 

Tahapenes, 

Bubastis — “ Pibeseth”  of  Scripture, 
Heliopolis — “Beth-Shemmitn'’  and  “On,” 
Buto,  Taposiris,  Sais,  &c.  &c., 
ably  long  prior  to  the  foundation  of  a 
Memphis. 


All  cities  of  Lower 
Egypt,  are  historically 
as  ancient  as  Memphis; 
and  that  the  Delta  was 
studded  with  towns  at 
the  earliest  epoch,  prob- 
metropolis  like  that  of 


I do  not  know  whether  the  observation  has  ever  been  made  by 
others,  but  it  has  often  struck  me,  in  my  reflections  on  Egyptian 
history,  as  a singular  fact;  that,  although  Eratosthenes  makes  all  his 
early  kings  Thebans,  other  authors,  especially  Manetho,  invariably 
keep  us  in  the  lower  country,  and  about  Memphis,  in  the  classifica- 
tion of  ear'y  monarehs.  The  superior  antiquity  of  the  names  of 
placed  and  unplaced  kings  found  in  the  lower  country,  and  the  un- 
controvertab'e  prioritj  of  the  monuments  existing  at  Memphis,  bear 
witness  to  the  truth  of  the  record.*  Moreover,  the  oniy  royal  names 
we  can  perfectly  identify  in  the  respective  catalogues  of  Manetho 
and  Eratosthenes,  after  Menes — are  Soris  or  R auosis,  Suphis  or 


* It  is  a striking  fact,  that  the  more  ancient  monuments  of  Egypt,  instead  of  being 
found  high  up  the  river,  uctually  lie  JVbrf/t— the  primitive  edifices  being  the  pyramids  of 
Jjuwer  Egypt— the  n ost  ancient  tombs  and  excavations  being  at  Memphis  at  Wadee- 
Magara,  and,  generally  speaking,  a bout  the  Hep-ttnomide.  I owe  this  remark  to  Samuel 
Birch,  Esq.,  of  the  British  Museum. 


58 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


Saop/iis,  1st  and  2nd,  together  with  Meneheres  or  Moschercs,  (all  names 
of  Pharaohs,  which  I have  produced  in  hieroglyphics,)  and  these  are 
every  one  of  them  placed  by  Manetho  in  his  4th  Memphite  dynasty, 
and  by  Eratosthenes  in  his  Theban  list,  not  later  than  the  17th 
monarch  from  Menes. 

Now,  if  the  kings  recognized  in  the  copy  of  the  archives  of  the 
Diospolitan  priests  as  Theban  sovereigns,  are  the  same  persons  as 
those  we  find  attributed  by  Manetho  to  Memphite  families ; may  we 
not  draw  a reasonable  inference,  that  these,  at  least,  ruled,  like  Me- 
nes. all  over  Egypt  ? holding,  as  each  of  them  evidently  did,  supreme 
power  in  loth  of  the  great  cities  of  the  Nilotic  valley.  Cities,  sepa- 
rated by  a distance  of  480  miles ; and  when  to  embrace  Egypt, 
throughout  its  entire  length,  and  narrow  breadth,  under  one  undivided 
sway,  it  was  necessary  only  to  subjugate  the  120  miles  between 
Memphis  and  the  sea,  and  the  138  miles  between  Thebes  and  the 
1st  Cataract  of  Syene.  If  they  held,  as  monumentally  and  historic- 
ally we  prove  they  did,  Thebes  and  Memphis,  what  could  prevent 
their  holding  the  remainder  7 

Indeed,  setting  aside  indisputable  monumental  facts  and  limiting 
our  regard  to  history  alone,  sacred  history  will  permit  us  to  infer, 
and  profane  history  will  allow  us  to  assert,  that  the  sceptre  of  Menes 
was  held  by  each  of  his  successors,  alone  and  indivisible,  down  to 
the  invasion  of  the  Hykshos,  several  centuries  after  the  days  of  the 
pyramids,  to  which  we  are  confining  our  present  inquiries  : while, 
from  Manetho,  from  the  old  Chronicle,  and  from  Herodotus,  we  learn 
that  the  families,  or  monarehs,  who  successively  held  that  sceptre, 
either  were  from  Lower  Egypt,  or  were,  in  some  mode  or  other, 
therewith  connected  by  buildings,  or  great  works,  though  their  sway 
stretched  from  the  Mediterranean  at  least  as  far  as  the  1st  Cataract. 
On  reference  to  the  subjoined  table  of  Manetho’s  dynasties,  it  will  be 
seen  that  the  first  Dyn.  was  Thinite,  or  of  This,  near  Abydos, 
whence  sprung  Menes,  or  Menei,  and  he  built  Memphis,  the  oldest 
city  and  the  first  metropolis  of  Egypt.  The  2nd  was  Tanite.  The 
3rd,  4th,  6th,  7th  and  8th,  are  all  Memphite.  I do  not  omit  the 
introduction  of  the  family  from  Elephantine,  or  the  absurdity  of  lim- 
iting their  suppositious  sway  to  that  ridiculous  little  rock,  not  so 
large  or  fertile  as  Governor’s  Island,  in  the  harbor  of  New  York. 
If  they  were  kings  at  all,  they  ruled  over  all  Egypt ; and  were  termed 
Elcphantinite,  merely,  perhaps,  because  the  first  of  this  family  hap- 
pened to  be  born  there ; or  from  some  other  equally  insignificant 
reason.  The  9th  and  10th  are  Heliopolite  ; while  it  cannot  escape 
attention,  that  of  the  few  early  events  noted  by  Manetho,  and  (with 
exceptions,  proceeding  mainly  from  their  erroneous  classification  of 
monarehs)  by  Herodotus,  and  Diodorus,  the  greater  number  of  events 
make  Lower  and  Middle  Egypt  the  scene  of  their  occurrence  ! 

The  importance  of  confining  history  to  its  legitimate  place — to 
Lower  Egypt,  is  evident: 

1st.  Because  it  was  in  Lower  Egypt  that  the  Caucasian  children 
of  Ham  must  have  first  settled,  on  their  arrival  from  Asia. 

2nd.  Because  the  advocates  of  the  theory,  which  would  assert  the 
African  origin  of  the  Egyptians,  say  they  rely  chiefly  on  history  for 
their  African,  or  Ethiopian  predilections. 

3rd.  Because  the  same  theorists*  assume,  that  we  must  begin 

*1  have  already  stated,  that  Sir.  J.  Gardner  Wilkinson's  critical  observations,  during 
his  long  residence  in  Egypt ; and  his  comparisons  between  the  present  Egyptians  and 
the  ancient  race,  ns  depicted  on  the  monuments,  have  led  him  to  assert  the  Asiatic  ori- 
gin of  the  early  inhabitants  of  the  Nilotic  valley.  Tire  learned  hierologist,  Samuel 
Birch,  Esq.,  of  the  British  museum,  informed  me  in  London  that  he  hud  arrived  attire 
•ante  conclusions;  while  to  his  suggestion  am  I indebted  for  the  first  idea,  “that  the 
most  ancient  Egyptian  monuments  lie  JVorlA."  The  great  naturalists,  Blurnenbach 
and  Cuvier,  declared  that  all  the  mummies  they  bad  opportunities  of  examining,  pre- 
sented the  Caucasian  type.  Monsieur  Jomard,  theemineut  hydrographer  and  profound 
Orientalist,  in  a paper  on  Egyptian  ethnology,  appended  to  the  3rd  volume  of  “ Men- 
gins  Histoirede  1'Egypte,”  Paris,  1839,  sustains  the  Jlrabian  (and  consequently  Asiatic 
and  Caucasian)  origin  of  the  early  Egyptians ; and  his  opinions  are  the  more  valuable, 
as  he  draws  his  conclusions  independently  of  hieroglyphical  discoveries.  On  the  other 
hand,  Protessor  Rosellini,  throughout  his  “ Monumenti"  accepts  and  continues  the 
doctrine,  of  the  descent  of  civilization  from  Ethiopia,  and  the  African  origin  of  the 
Egyptians.  Champollion  Figeac,  in  his  “ Egypte  Aucienne,”  Paris,  1810,  p.  28,  34,  417, 
supports  the  same  theory,  which  his  illustrious  brother  set  forth  in  the  sketch  of  Egyp- 
tian history  presented  by  him  to  Mohammed  Ali,  in  1829,  (published  in  his  letters  from 
Egypt  and  Nubia,)  wherein,  he  derives  the  ancient  Egyptians,  according  to  the  Grecian 
authorities,  from  Ethiopia ; and  considers  them  to  belong  to  “ la  Race  Barabra  the 
Berbers  or  Nubians.  Deeming  the  original  Barabra  to  have  been  an  African  race, 
ingrafted  at  the  present  day  with  Caucasian  as  well  as  Negro  blood,  I reject  rAcir  simili- 
tude to  the  monumental  Egyptians  in  toto;  and  am  fain  to  believe,  that  Champollion 
le  Jeuue  himself  hnd  either  modified  his  previous  hastily-formed  opinion,  or.  at  any 
rule,  had  not  taken  a decided  stand  on  this  important  point,  from  the  following  extract 
of  Ills  eloquent  nddress  from  the  academic  chair,  delivered  10th  May,  1831. 

" Grammaire  Egyptiennc,  p.  xix.— C’est  par  Panalyse  raisonnee  de  la  langue  des 
Plmraons,  que  Pethnogruphie  decidera  si  la  vieille  population  egyptienue  fut  d’origine 
Asiatique,  on  liien  siellc  descendit,  avec  le  fleuve  divinise,  des  plateaux  de  l'Afrique 
centrule.  On  ddcidera  en  meme  temps  si  les  Egyptiens  n’appartenaient  point  k une 
nice  d'stincte;  car,  il  faut  le  declarer  ici,  (in  which  I entirely  agree  with  him)  centre 
I’opiuion  commune,  les  Coetks  de  1’Egypte  inoderne.  regardes  comme  les  derniers 
rejetons  des  anciens  Egyptienes,  n’ont  offert  k mes  yeux  ni  la  couleur  ni  uucun  des  traits 
caracteristiques,  duns  les  lineaments  du  visage  ou  dans  les  formes  du  corps,  qui  putcon- 
etater  une  aussi  noble  descendance." 

It  may  be  added,  that  the  linguistic  desideratum  looked  for  by  Champollion,  has,  since 
his  demise,  been  fully  supplied  by  the  profound  paleographer.  Dr.  Leipsius,  of  Berlin, 
who  has  established  the  Asiatic  affinities  of  the  Coptic  tonge,  while  the  prospective 
journey  of  the  Prussian  Scientific  Mission  to  Meroe,  in  the  ensuing  winter,  will  probably 
aet  all  Ethiopia  questions  at  rest. 

The  “Crania  vEgyptiaca,”  erected  on  a foundation  hitherto  unanticipated  by  any 
ethnological  inquirer,  and  combining  every  view  of  the  subject,  will  create  a new  era  in 
the  history  of  man,  as  honornble  to  its  author,  as  importaut  to  the  savan,  and  eminently 
advantageous  to  the  scientific  reputation  of  his  aountry. 


with  Africans  nt  the  top  of  the  Nile,  and  come  downward  with 
civilization,  instead  of  commencing  with  Asiatics  and  white  men  nt 
the  bottom,  and  carrying  it  up. 

I have  not  as  yet  touched  on  ethnography  ; the  effects  of  climate  , 
and  the  antiquity  of  the  different  races  of  the  human  family  ; but  I 
shall  come  to  those  subjects,  after  establishing  a chronological  stand- 
ard, by  defining  the  history  of  Egypt  according  to  the  hieroglyphics. 
At  present,  I intend  merely  to  sketch  the  events  connected  with  the 
Caucasian  children  of  Ham,  the  Asiatic,  on  the  first  establishment 
of  their  Egyptian  monarchy,  and  the  foundation  of  their  first  and 
greatest  metropolis  in  Lower  Egypt. 

The  African  theories  are  based  upon  no  critical  examination  of 
early  history  ; are  founded  on  no  Scriptural  authority  for  early  migra- 
tions ; are  supported  by  no  monumental  evidence,  or  hieroglyphical 
data  ; and  cannot  be  borne  out,  or  admitted,  by  practical  common 
sense.  For  civilization,  that  never  came  northward  out  of  benighted 
Africa,  (but  from  the  Deluge  to  the  present  moment  has  been  carried 
but  partially  into  it ; to  sink  into  utter  oblivion  among  the  barbarous 
races  whom  Providence  created  to  inhabit  the  Ethiopian  and  Nigri- 
tian  territories  of  that  vast  continent)  could  not  spring  from  Negroes, 
or  from  Berbers,  and  never  did.  ' 

So  far  then,  as  the  record,  scriptural,  historical  and  monumental, 
will  afford  us  an  insight  into  the  early  progress  of  the  human  race  in 
Egypt,  (the  most  ancient  of  all  civilized  countries)  we  may  safely 
assert,  that  history  when  analyzed  by  common  sense  ; when  scruti. 
nized  by  the  application  of  the  experience  bequeathed  to  us  by  our 
forefathers  ; when  subjected  to  a strictly  impartial  examination  into, 
and  comparison  of  the  physical  and  mental  capabilities  of  nations  ; 
when  distilled  in  the  alembic  of  chronology  ; and  submitted  to  the 
touchstone  of  hieroglyphical  tests,  will  not  support  that  superan. 
nuated,  but  untenable  doctrine,  that  civilization  originated  in  Ethi- 
opia, and  consequently  among  an  African  people,  and  was  by  them 
brought  down  the  Nile  to  enlighten  the  less-polished,  and  therefore 
inferior,  Caucasian  children  of  Noah — the  white  Asiatics  ; or  that 
we,  who  trace  back  to  Egypt  the  origin  of  every  art  and  science 
known  in  antiquity,  have  to  thank  the  sable  Negro,  or  the  dusky 
Berber,  for  the  first  gleams  of  knowledge  and  invention. 

We  may  therefore  conclude  with  the  observation,  that  if  civiliza. 
tion,  instead  of  going  from  North  to  South,  came — contrary,  as 
shown  before,  to  the  annals  of  the  earliest  historians,  and  all  monu- 
mental facts — down  the  “ Sacred  Nile”  to  illumine  our  darkness  ; 
and  if  the  Ethiopic  origin  of  arts  and  sciences,  with  social,  moral, 
and  religious  institutions,  were  in  other  respects  possible  ; these  Afri- 
can theoretic  conclusions  would  form  a most  astounding  exception 
to  the  ordinations  of  Providence,  and  the  organic  laws  of  nature, 
otherwise  so  undeviating  throughout  all  the  generations  of  man’s 
history  since  the  Flood. 

Having  indicated  the  lowest  boundary  of  our  chronological  limit 
for  the  pyramids  of  Memphis ; and  shown  that  they  could  not  well 
have  been  built  at  a later  date  than  Usher’s  era  of  the  Deluge,  B.  C., 
2348;  I proceed  to  a few  generalities  on  those  139  pyramids  found 
at  Gebel-Birkel,  Noori,  and  Merawe,  in  Ethiopia.  The  largest  of  all 
these  has  a base  of  only  100  feet  square,  and  the  smallest  not  more 
than  20 ; so  that  in  dimensions,  they  are  inferior  to  the  smallest  of 
the  Memphite  pyramids.  According  to  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Hoskins, 
they  are  all  more  ancient  than  those  of  Memphis  ; but  the  reasons  he 
adduces,  are  not  by  any  means  conclusive.  I have  examined  the 
subject  with  a good  deal  of  attention,  and  am  of  opinion  that  they 
may  be  coeval  with  those  of  Memphis,  but  probably  in  many  instan. 
ces,  are  posterior. 

Many  of  these  pyramids  contain  hieroglyphical  tablets,  and  sculp- 
tures that  are  indisputably  Egyptian  in  form,  style,  coloring,  and  sub. 
jects,  whence  we  may  derive  two  conclusions.  One,  that  hierogly. 
phical  writing  was  known  and  practised,  at  whatever  period  these 
pyramids  were  erected  ; the  other,  that  they  were  built  by  the  same 
Caucasian  race  of  men  who  erected  those  mightier  edifices  at  Mem. 
phis.  We  are  also  assured,  that  in  purpose  they  were  identical  with 
the  sepulchral  uses  of  those  of  Egypt,  and  contained,  like  these  last, 
the  tombs  of  monarehs  or  royal  families. 

With  regard  to  the  epoch  of  the  construction  of  the  Ethiopian 
pyramids,  we  have  as  yet  no  data  beyond  the  evidences  of  remote, 
though  indefinable  antiquity  ; but  that  they  were  built  by  the  same 
race  of  men,*  who  founded  those  at  Memphis,  is  established  beyond 
dispute,  by  Mr.  Hoskins.  This  accurate  draughtsman  and  faithful 
narrator  has,  with  strict  impartiality,  furnished  facts  whence  he  would 
deduce — 

1st.  The  priority  of  the  Merod  pyramids  over  those  of  Memphis — 
and  secondly,  that  being  built  by  the  same  people  in  both  cases,  he 
would  establish  the  origin  of  civilization  in  Ethiopia,  and  its  descent 
(down  the  Nile)  into  Egypt,  where  the  descendants  of  these  builders 
of  Ethiopian  pyramids  erected  all  the  monuments  of  every  age,  now 
existing  below  the  first  Cataract. 

With  precisely  the  same  facts,  and  grounding  all  my  arguments  on 

* pr.  Morton,  in  ms  cramoiogicai  ooservatione,  nas  oeciarea  *-  tnat  tne  Austrm- 
Egyptian,  or  Meroite  communities,  were  in  great  measure  derived  from  the  Indo-Arabian 
stock  • thus  pointing  to  a triple-Caucasian  source  for  the  origin  of  the  Egyptians,  when 
regarded  as  one  people  extending  from  Meroe  to  the  Delta.”  The  arguments  for  this 
opinion,  which  is  by  me  implicitly  adopted,  will  be  found  in  the  “ Cronia  iEgyptiaca,” 
and  I need  only  at  present  mention,  that  this  Indo-Arabian  intermixture  with  the  chil 
dren  of  Ham,  can  be  readily  accounted  for. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


59 


the  plates  and  descriptions  of  Mr.  Hoskins,  I arrive  at  results  dia- 
metrically opposite. 

It  is  indeed  sufficient  to  glance  one’s  eye  at  the  plates  of  the  sculp, 
tures  from  the  Ethiopian  pyramids,  to  see  that  there  is  nothing  Afri- 
can in  the  character  of  the  human  faces  ; and  that,  be  they  who  they 
may,  these  people  were  not,  and  did  not  desire  to  be  considered  Afri- 
cans, whether  of  the  Berber  or  the  Negro  branches.  Whence,  already 
we  begin  to  infer,  that  the  builders  of  these  Ethiopian  pyramids  were 
not  aborigines  of  that  country,  but  of  a race  foreign  to  Africa,  and 
generally  speaking,  at  that  remote  period  unmixed  with  African 
blood.  Unless  born  in  Ethiopia,  they  must  have  come  originally 
from  some  other  region.  Who  can  they  be  ? 

Now  it  is  but  reasonable  to  claim,  that  if  in  arts,  sciences,  customs, 
religion,  color  and  physiological  conformation,  these  people  of  Meroe 
are  the  same  people  as  the  Egyptians,  and  we  prove  the  Egyptians  to 
have  been  Asiatic  in  origin — Caucasian  in  race,  and  white  men  in 
color : the  people  of  Meroe  must  have  been  Asiatics,  Caucasians  and 
white  men  also.  This  was  precisely  the  case,  and  for  the  Egyptian 
side  of  the  question,  I need  not  recapitulate  the  account  of  Mizraim’s 
migration  into  the  valley  of  the  Nile,  but  refer  to  Morton’s  “Crania 
ACgyptiaca”  for  incontrovertible  evidence. 

The  question,  in  regard  to  the  priority  of  erection  between  the  pyra- 
mids of  Meroe,  and  those  of  Memphis,  merges  into  the  still  more 
interesting  fact  of  their  having  been  built  by  the  same  race  of  men, 
who  were  not  Africans,  but  Caucasians. 

This  will  a / once  explain  the  cause  of  the  superiority  of  the  inhab- 
itants of  Meroe,  over  all  African  aborigines,  and  the  reason  why  the 
Egyptians  looked  upon  them  as  brethren  and  friends — never  stigma- 
tizing them  by  the  contemptuous  title  of  “Gentiles,”  or  “impure 
foreigners,”  as  they  designated  Asiatic  and  European  nations  ; and 
never  applying  to  the  people  of  Meroe,  the  reproach  of  belonging  to 
the  “perverse  race  of  Kush,”  (not  Cush,  the  son  of  Ham)  by  which 
name  the  Egyptians  exclusively  designated  the  Negro  and  the  Berber 
races  in  hieroglyphics.  Wc  shall  come  to  these  facts  in  due  course. 
This  view  can  be  sustained  by  the  whole  chain  of  monumental  and 
other  history.  It  will  account  for  all  the  conflicting  traditionary 
legends,  that  would  make  Meroe  the  parent  of  Egyptian  civilization, 
or  Ethiopia  the  cradle  of  the  Egyptian  people — will  explain  the  inti- 
macy and  alliance  subsisting  at  every  period  between  Egypt  and  Me. 
roe  ; the  parity  in  religion  ; identity  in  usages  and  institutions  ; 
similarity  in  language,  writing,  buildings,  &c. 

I would  therefore  offer,  as  an  improved  hypothesis,  that  the  chil- 
dren of  Ham,  on  leaving  Asia  and  settling  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile, 
colonized  first  Lower  Egypt,  and  then  all  the  alluvial  soil  from  the 
Delta,  to  the  confines  of  Nigritia,  wherein  they  did  not  penetrate  for 
permanent  establishment,  for  the  identical  reason,  that  white  men 
cannot  do  so  at  the  present  time — the  climate ; which, in  Central  Africa, 
is  mortiferous  to  the  Caucasian.  It  does  not  change  his  skin,  hair, 
facial  angle,  or  his  osteology;  it  kills  him  outright,  if  he  crosses  a cer- 
tain latitude.  Of  course,  here  and  there,  an  exception  may  be  instanced 
where  white  men  have  crossed  the  (to  their  race)  deadly  miasmata 
of  Central  Africa ; but  these  exceptions  are  so  rare,  that  they  fortify 
the  rule.  Witness  the  late  Niger  expedition  ; witness  the  grave-yard 
that  Africa  has  been  to  the  most  enterprising  travellers  ; witness  the 
fruitless  attempts  of  Mohammed  Ali  to  send  expeditions,  but  a few 
hundred  miles  beyond  Khitrtoom. 

The  Caucasian  children  of  Ham  proceeded  up  the  Nile  in  a nat- 
ural course  of  migration  and  settlement,  from  Lower  Egypt  as  far  as 
Meroe — and  probably  there  (although  it  would  seem  likely  in  later 
times)  met  Indo-Arabian  Caucasians,  with  whom  they  mixed,  and 
formed  one  people. 

All  we  can  say  of  this  epoch  is,  that  these  circumstances  must 
have  occurred  before  Menes ; before  the  pyramids  of  Memphis  rose 
in  Egypt ; before  the  pyramids  of  Meroe  could  have  been  built  in 
Ethiopia. 

That  civilization  advanced  northward  from  the  Thebaid  (which 
appears  to  have  been  the  parental  seat  of  the  theocratic  government) 
before  Menei,  is  not  improbable.  That  the  Caucasians  who  settled 
at  Meroe  may  have  somewhat  preceded  in  civilization  their  brethren 
in  Egypt,  is  possible  ; though,  from  monumental  and  other  reasons,  I 
deom  it  unlikely.  But  it  does  seem  unnecessary,  that  the  children 
of  Ham,  (the  Caucasian,)  the  highest  caste  of  that  triple  Caucasian 
stock,  should  have  come  from  Asia  into  Egypt,  and  have  directly 
ascended  the  Nile,  leaving  the  most  eligible  provinces  and  heavenly 
climate  behind  them,  and  have  proceeded  1600  miles  to  an  almost 
barren  spot,  to  Meroe,  between  the  tropics,  for  the  objects  of  study 
and  improvement,  and  then  have  returned  into  Egypt  to  colonize 
that  country,  or  in  other  words  to  civilize  their  own  relations.  How 
much  more  reasonable  is  it  to  attribute  the  rise  of  civilization  to  the 
people,  occupying  the  best  land  under  the  pure  skies  of  Egypt,  or  to 
suppose  that  its  development  was  simultaneous  among  the  same 
people,  along  the  whole  alluvial  line  from  Lower  Egypt  to  Meroe  ? 

There  are  no  positive  data  by  which  the  antiquity  of  the  pyramids 
of  Meroe  is  shown  to  be  more  remote  than  that  of  Memphis  ; and  I 
am  inclined  to  regard  both  as  dating  about  the  same  period,  when 
pyramidal  constructions  were  preferred  to  all  others,  for  the  last 
habitation  of  the  royal  dignitaries  of  Egypt  and  Meroe.  It  may  be 
conjectured,  that  if  in  Ethiopia  these  are  tombs  of  individual  kings, 
they  continued  there  to  erect  pyramids  long  after  this  species  of 


sepulchre  was  abandoned  in  Egypt ; because  this  would  in  some 
degree  explain  their  number.  They  were  all  built,  and  were  ancient, 
in  the  days  of  Tirhaka,  B.  C.  700.  139  pyramids,  at  22$  years  for  a 

kingly  generation,  would  be  3027$  years;  which  is  incompatible 
with  all  scriptural  chronology.  I am,  therefore,  inclined  to  consider 
the  pyramids  of  Meroe  to  be  tombs  of  kings,  queens  and  princes. 
We  have  no  sure  basis  for  calculating  their  antiquity,  excepting  tha* 
they  belong  to  a period  more  ancient  than  700  B.  C. ; but  we  know, 
that  whenever  they  were  erected,  it  was  by  the  same  race  whiclt 
built  those  of  Memphis,  the  children  of  Ham — the  Caucasian  settlers 
in  the  Nilotic  valley,  and  not  by  African  aborigines  of  any  race,  or 
of  any  period.  The  most  critical  examination  establishes  for  the 
pyramids  of  Egypt,  and  for  Shoopho,  builder  of  the  largest,  an  anti- 
quity that  cannot  certainly  be  later  than  B.C.  2348 — though  probably 
dating  some  centuries  earlier;  but  that  they  were  erected  by  Cauca. 
sians  is  indisputable.  That  the  pyramids  of  Meroe  belong  to  the 
same  epoch  is  probable,  and  that  they  were  likewise  built  by  Cauca- 
sians is  positive. 

If  the  pyramids  of  Meroe  are  older  than  those  of  Memphis,  their 
epoch  must  necessarily  surpass  the  Septuagint  era  of  the  Flood,  if 
not  that  of  the  Creation. 

If,  from  a rigid  examination  of  their  present  appearance,  the  priority 
of  those  at  Meroe  is  proved,  (as  Mr.  Hoskins  considers,)  and  this 
aged  appearance  cannot  be  explained  by  the  effects  of  tropical  rains 
and  solar  heat,  acting  with  the  hand  of  the  spoiler  on  a friable  mate, 
rial  like  a soft  sandstone  ; when  we  reflect  how  little,  in  an  Egyptian 
climate,  time  affects  the  appearance  of  monuments  ; and  then,  (though 
erroneously,)  recognize  in  Ethiopia  a better  climate  than  that  of 
Egypt — if,  I say,  we  consider  that  notwithstanding  so  long  a period, 
(above  4000  years,)  as  we  know  the  Memphite  pyramids  to  have 
stood — time  has  had  such  a trifling  effect  on  their  massive  structures ; 
and  we  are  to  allow  a still  slighter  effect  to  be  produced  by  time  on 
those  edifices  at  Meroe — why,  we  must  carry  the  pyramids  of  Meroe 
beyond  all  chronological,  and  measure  their  antiquity  by  geological 
periods ; 1st,  as  regards  the  epoch  of  the  building  of  these  Meroe 
pyramids ; which  is  one  fact ; and  2nd,  as  concerns  the  national 
traits  of  the  builders,  who  were  not  Africans,  but  Asiatics,  the  utter 
destruction  of  all  biblical  chronology  by  this  process  would  be 
another. 

Now,  “ things  which  are  equal  to  the  same  are  equal  to  one 
another.”  If  they  are  anterior  to  Shoopho’s  pyramid  in  Egypt,  then 
Meroe  must  have  been  occupied  in  the  earliest  ages — many  centuries 
before  B.  C.  2348 — by  Caucasians,  who  must  have  migrated  up  the 
valley  of  the  Nile,  and  have  been  settled  many  ages  at  Meroe  before 
they  erected  one  pyramid.  If  posterior  to  Shoopho’s  pyramid,  Meroe 
was  a colony  of  Egypto-Caucasians,  at  any  intervening  period  prior 
to  the  16th  dynasty,  B.C.  2272 — for  we  know  from  positive  con. 
quests  of  Egyptian  Pharaohs  in  Nigritia  and  Ethiopia,  that  Meroe 
was  an  Egyptian  province  from  about  that  time,  down  to  a few  years 
prior  to  B.  C.  700 — say  for  a thousand  years. 

But,  if  each  of  these  pyramids  of  Ethiopia,  like  those  of  Memphis, 
be  the  sepulchre  of  a king,  and  if  all  of  these  Meroe  edifices,  (ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Hoskins)  were  erected  before  Shoophos’  time,  as  there 
are  139  pyramids  in  Ethiopia,  we  should  have  139  generations  of 
Caucasian  kings  at  Meroe  before  the  pyramids  of  Memphis  were 
thought  of. 

Lastly,  if  the  advocates  qf  the  African  origin  of  the  Egyptians 
cling  to  the  superior  antiquity  of  the  pyramids  at  Meroe,  as  a proof 
of  the  origin  of  civilization  in  Ethiopia,  and  its  consequent  descent 
into  Egypt,  they  are  easily  placed  in  a series  of  dilemmas.  If  they 
deny  all  Caucasian  introduction  at  Meroe,  in  the  hope  of  vindicating 
the  ancient  mental  and  physical  capabilities  of  Negro  or  Berber 
races  ; as  I have  proved  the  immense  and  almost  biblically-irrecon- 
cilable  antiquity  of  the  Memphite  pyramids,  the  advocates  of  the 
African  origin  of  civilization  must  reject  Scripture  altogether,  both 
for  chronology  and  primitive  migrations.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  they 
al  ow,  that,  according  to  the  Bible,  Ham  was  the  parent  of  the  Egyp- 
tians, as  we  prove  these  Egyptians  to  have  been  pure-blooded  white 
men,  they  must  allow  that  civilization,  proceeding  from  the  Cauca- 
sians, took  its  rise  in  Egypt;  and  that  Ethiopian  civilization  is  a con. 
sequence;  while,  in  no  case,  can  they  make  it  appear  that  the  African 
races  above  Egypt  were  one  iota  more  civilized  in  ancient  times  titan 
at  the  present  day,  for  the  civilization  of  Meroe  originated  with  the 
Caucasians,  and  expired  on  the  extinction,  or  on  the  deteriorating 
amalgamation,  of  their  high-caste  race. 

Such  are  the  results  of  my  reflections  on  the  subject  of  the  pyra. 
mids.  They  are  not  rashly  advanced ; nor  devoid  of  infinite  corro- 
boration. They  might  be  greatly  extended,  and  a variety  of  inte- 
resting comparisons  might  be  instituted  between  the  pyramids  of 
Ethiopia  and  Egypt,  and  those  found  on  the  Euphrates  by  Colonei 
Chesney,  that  one  supposed  to  be  the  ruins  of  the  tower  of  Babel, 
and  those  in  Central  America. 

My  province,  however,  is  solely  Egyptian  history  ; and  I will  con- 
fidently assert,  tnat  any  one  who  will  read  and  study  the  works  of 
the  hieroglyphical  school — the  volumes  of  the  Champollions,  of  Ro. 
sellini,  and  of  Wilkinson — who  will  weigh  the  demonstrations  in 
Morton’s  “Crania  ASgyptiaca,”  and  who,  to  remove  the  last  atom* 
of  scepticism,  will  pay  a visit  to  Egypt’s  time-honored  monuments, 
and  verify  for  himself  the  truth  of  the  descriptions  given  by  the  hiero- 

S 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


bO 


logists — any  one.  1 repeat,  who  will  do  all  this,  (which  I have  done) 
and  then  deny  these  evidences,  would,  I really  believe,  dispute  the 
truth  of  Euclid’s  axiom,  and  maintain  that  “ a straight  line  is  not  the 
shortest  distance  from  one  given  point  to  another.” 

I<et  me  recapitulate,  in  a summary  mode,  what  these  results  are  : 
1st.  Geologically — that  the  Delta  is  as  ancient  as  any  portion  of 
the  alluvial  soil  of  the  Nile,  and  that  it  was  inhabited  at  the  earliest 
postdiluvian  period. 

2nd.  Geographically — that  Lower  Egypt  was  by  climate,  soil,  and 
every  circumstance,  most  favorable  to  early  settlement  ; and  as  the 
most  contiguous  to  Asia,  was  the  region  best  adapted  to  primitive 
colonization,  and  the  earliest  civilization. 

3rd.  Scripturally — that  the  children  of  Ham  came  from  the  banks 
of  the  Euphrates  into  Egypt,  through  Syria,  Palestine,  and  the  Isth- 
mus of  Suez — that  they  inhabited  the  lower  provinces  of  the  Nilotic 
valley  in  the  first  instance,  whence  they  eventually  spread  them- 
selves over  the  alluvial  soil  of  that  valley,  in  a natural  order  of  mi- 
gration and  settlement. 

4th.  Physiologically — which,  for  the  first  time  is  clearly  demon- 
strated by  Morton’s  “Crania  HUgyptiaca,”  the  keystone  of  the  sys- 
tem : that  the  ancient  inhabitants  of  Egypt  were  Asiatic  in  origin, 
and  Caucasian  in  race,  from  the  earliest  period  to  the  extinction  of 
Pharaonic  dominion,  which  is  in  perfect  accordance  with  Scriptural 
migrations,  and  their  Caucasian  origin  as  descendants  of  Noah. 

5th.  Ethnographically — according  to  Dr.  Leipsius,  that,  as  the 
affinities  of  the  Indo-Germanic  and  Semitic  languages  with  the  Cop- 
tic, establish  the  Asiatic  and  common  primeval  origin  of  all  three, 
the  remaining  link  of  language  is  supplied  to  show  the  Caucasian 
attributes  of  the  Egyptian  tongue. 

6th.  Historically — from  the  collation  of  the  most  ancient  records 
with  eacli  other,  corrected  by  the  application  of  hieroglyphical  tes- 
timony, coeval  with  the  earliest  events  of  which  history  has  left  us 
the  annals — 

7th,  and  Monumentally — from  the  edifices  still  erect  in  Lower 
Egypt,  which  are  more  ancient  than  any  others  in  the  world,  and 
from  the  vestiges  in  Lower  Egypt  of  early  cities,  which  history  at- 
tests were  equal  to  any  others  in  antiquity — 

We  are  fully  justified  in  concluding  that  civilization,  springing 
from  Asia,  introduced  by  Caucasians  into  Lower  Egypt,  obtained  its 
earliest  known  developments  in  the  lower  provinces,  and  therefore 
accompanied  a white  race  up  the  Nile,  from  north  to  south,  as  these 
people,  the  primitive  Egyptians,  must  have  ascended,  and  not  de- 
scended that  river. 

Let  us  now  return  to  the  chain  of  history.  We  have  brought  the 
children  of  Ham  from  Asia  into  Egypt;  we  have  settled  their  des- 
cendants along  the  whole  Nilotic  valley  ; we  have  watched  the  rise 
of  civilization,  and  the  formation  of  a general  theocratic  govern- 
ment ; we  have  seen  a military  chieftain  seize  the  sceptre,  and  found 
a powerful  dynasty  of  hereditary  sovereigns  ; we  have  seen  his  suc- 
cessors improve  cities  for  their  residences,  build  pyramids  for  their 
tombs  ; and  where  are  we  in  chronological  epochs  ? still  in  very  re- 
mote periods.  We  are  only  at  the  close  of  Manetho’s  4th  Memphite 
Dynasty,  so  far  as  hieroglyphical  confirmations  enable  us  to  deduce 
plausible  conjectures. 

We  have  now  reached  a point  of  darkness  so  dense,  that  a few 
observations  will  suffice  to  explain  the  difficulties  of  our  position  : 
on  the  one  hand  stands  Scriptural  chronology,  limiting  us  to  a given 
period,  between  the  Flood  and  Abraham  ; on  the  other,  we  have  the 
very  doubtful  number  of  Manetho’s  kings  and  reigns.  A few  years 
ago  no  one  pretended  to  consider  Manetho’s  first  fifteen  dynasties  as 
worthy  of  notice  ; and  even  at  the  present  day,  there  is  no  reason  for 
accepting  the  number  of  his  kings ; or  the  length  of  their  reigns, 
auch  as  have  been  transmitted  to  us  by  his  copyists.  Therefore, 
Manetho’s  period,  from  the  fourth  to  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  dynasty, 
is  considered  improbable  by  me,  although  on  the  Continent  there 
are  some  hierologists  who  accept  the  whole  of  Manetho  as  he  s'ands 
in  the  table  already  presented,  by  which  the  accession  of  Menes 
would  have  occurred,  B.  C.  5867. 

It  is  singular,  that  the  monuments  confirm  Manetho,  as  will  be 
seen,  in  a most  extraordinary  manner  up  to  the  16th  dynasty  ; that 
the  pyramids  confirm  his  4th  dynasty  ; and  that  the  1st  king  of  the 
1st  dynasty,  Menei,  is  now  confirmed  by  tablets  and  papyri.  In 
fact,  it  may  be  contended,  that,  dating  back  from  the  31st  dynasty, 
as  Manetho  has  been  corroborated  by  the  hieroglyphics  on  the  monu- 
ments of  Egypt  up  to  the  16th  dynasty  ; say  B.  C.,  2272— his  autho- 
rity must  not  be  altogether  rejected  upon  preceding  epochs;  espe- 
cially now,  that  his  4th  Memphite  dynasty  stands  forth  a brilliant 
constellation  in  the  firmament  of  historical  gloom. 

But  unhappily  the  tomes  of  the  high  priest  of  On — the  far-famed 
Heliopolis — have  reached  us  in  scattered  fragments,  which  bear  in- 
terna' evidence  of  having  been  mutilated  by  his  copyists,  to  suit  their 
own  peculiar  systems  of  cosmogony  ; and  while  we  may  refuse  our 
belief  to  the  immeasurable,  as  well  as  inconsistent  periods,  and  ex- 
traordinary number  of  kings  for  his  first  15  dynasties ; yet,  not  ha- 
ving, in  the  fragments  bequeathed  us  by  Manetho’s  transcribers,  the 
names  of  the  kings  who  figured  in  the  7th,  8th,  9th,  10th,  11th,  12th, 
13th,  14th  and  15th  dynasties,  we  are  not  able  to  identify  with  Ma- 
netho’s list,  the  long  hieTiglyohical  catalogue  called  “U  nplaced 
Kings,”  most  oi  whom  however,  are  attended  with  circumstanced 


evidence  proving  their  appertaining  to  some  period  before  the  lfth 
dynasty  ; say  prior  to  B.  C.,  2272 — and  between  that  period  and  the 
accession  of  Menes. 

By  “ unplaced  kings”  are  meant  the  great  number  of  royal  ovals 
or  cartouches,  containing  the  names  of  Pharaohs,  the  greater  part  of 
whom  lived  before  the  16th  dynasty  ; because,  from  the  16th  dynasty 
downward,  we  can  adjust  the  monuments  with  Manetho’s  histo- 
ry, and  therefore  these  unplaced  kings  must  have  lived  beforj  that 
period  ; independently  of  a variety  of  circumstances  which  send  each 
of  them  back  to  a previous  epoch. 

We  know  that  each  of  these  unplaced  kings  “Wed,  moved, 
and  had  a being ;”  and  from  historical  and  hieroglyphic  testimony 
we  can  prove,  that  so  many  of  them  ruled  over  all  Egypt,  as  to  de- 
stroy the  supposition  of  their  being  coetaneous.  For  instance,  let  ua 
take  the  following. 


Remeran — Sun — beloved  name.  He  is  a most  an- 
cient king.  He  is  found  in  Karnac ; at  Chenoboscion, 
on  the  Cosseir  road — and  as  his  titles  are  “ Lord  of 
Upper  and  Lower  Egypt,”  he  ruled  over  the  whole 
country. 


Let  us  take  another. 

Pharaoh — or,  Lord  of  an  obedient  people. 

Remat — “ The  beloved  of  Phre.”  His  titles  arc  also 
Re  “Lord  of  Upper  and  Lower  Egypt” — but,  as  his  name 
is  found  at  Eilethyas,  at  Silsilis,  on  the  Cosseir  road,  at 
m Chenoboscion,  at  Karnac,  and  at  the  copper  mines  of 
Mount  Sinai,  he  must  have  ruled  over  all  Egypt. 


These  Unplaced  Kings  may  amount  in  number  at  present  (for 
one  or  more  new  kings  are  yearly  discovered,)  to  about  180  car- 
touches  as  an  approximative  extreme.  But,  making  due  allowance 
for  possible  repetition  of  the  same  kings’  names  in  variations  of  car- 
touches,  or  otherwise  ; and  rejecting,  as  doubtful  cases,  many  others, 
we  have  in  hieroglyphics  more  than  sixty  unplaced  kings,  who 
must  have  lived  and  reigned  between  Menes  and  the  16th  dynastv, 
or  between  Mizraim  and  Abraham,  wherewith  to  fill  up  some  por- 
tion of  the  blanks  of  history.  Others  will  be  discovered — circum 
stances  will  add  to  our  knowledge  of  many  of  them ; but  it  is  scarcely 
possible  to  be  hoped,  by  the  most  sanguine,  that  we  shall  ever  be 
able  to  possess  the  hieroglyphical  names  of  all  “ the  children  of  the 
sun,”  who  swayed  the  sceptre  of  Menes,  owing  to  the  destruction 
of  monuments  in  Egypt  by  the  Hykshos,  the  Persians,  the  Greeks, 
the  Romans,  the  Christians,  the  Saracens,  the  Turks,  and  the  Herod 
of  all  destroyers,  the  present  Mohammed  Ali. 

An  adequate  number  of  Egyptian  royal  ovals  has  been  found, 
however,  to  satisfy  the  impartial,  that  the  number  of  350  kings,  who, 
according  to  profane  authors,  ruled  over  Egypt  from  Menes  to  the 
31st  dynasty,  B.  C.,  332 — is  far  from  being  a mere  fable,  without 
some  foundation  in  fact ; and  that  it  is  positively  not  an  exaggeration 
in  toto.  I can,  from  my  own  notes  and  compilations,  produce  all 
that  to  the  best  of  my  belief  were  known  up  to  1842. 

There  is  every  reasonable  conjecture  that  the  effaced  29  kings,  of 
the  tablet  of  Abydos,  would,  if  we  possessed  all  Manetho,  be  found 
to  correspond  to  his  15th  dynasty  ; of  which  kings,  neither  the  num- 
ber, nor  the  names  are  extant  in  the  fragments  of  the  sacerdotal 
chronicler.  The  mutilated  condition  of  the  tablet  itself  adds  to  our 
difficulties.  I merely  note  the  circumstance,  while  the  uncertainty 
compels  us  to  throw  these  29  kings  among  the  unplaced  Pharaohs 
preceding  the  16th  dynasty. 

We  are  therefore  compelled  to  drop  the  veil  over  the  Egyytian 
history  from  the  pyramids,  during  an  uncertain,  but  a long  period, 
to  the  16th  dynasty,  B.  C.,  2272.  In  this  interval,  temples  were 
built,  as  we  possess  their  remains ; tombs  were  prepared  for  millions 
of  departed ; quarries  were  worked;  mines  were  opened  and  ex- 
plored; all  the  arts  and  sciences  were  practiced  ; religion  was  fos- 
tered. Egypt  would  seem  to  have  been  peaceful,  prosperous,  civil- 
ized, and  happy,  under  a long  chain  of  unambitious  monarchs  ; but 
more  than  this  we  do  not  know — perhaps  never  may.  Yet  the  dis. 
covery  of  a single  tablet  of  kings — a genealogical  papyrus — a copy 
of  Manetho — or  the  same  wonderful  chain  of  successful  labors  and 
extraordinary  coincidences,  that  have  hitherto  attended  the  Cham- 
pollion  school,  may  enable  some  fortunate  explorer  to  find,  and  to 
open  the  sealed,  the  lost  books  of  Hermes. 


CHAPTER  SEVENTH. 

The  first  of  my  two  preceding  discourses  was  intended  as  a sketch 
of  the  conjectural  and  probable  commencement  of  Egyptian  colo- 
nization by  the  Caucasian  children  of  Ham,  the  Asiatic — their  pro- 
gress up  the  Nile,  the  rise  of  the  theocracy  or  hierarchical  government, 
down  to  it3  modification  on  the  accession  of  Menei,  the  1st  Pharaoh 
in  Egypt. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


61 


The  object  of  the  second  discourse  was  to  define  the  possible  pe. 
riod  of  Menes’s  foundation  of  the  Pharaonic  monarchy,  taking  the 
year  2750  B.  C.,  as  within  a few  generations  approximative  of  the 
truth. 

We  then  descended  through  the  pyramidal  period  of  Egyptian 
monuments.  Wo  touched  on  the  difficulties  of  classing  ourW-'un. 
placed  kings;”  and,  while  we  allewed  the  doubts  and  conflicting 
statements  of  profane  history,  we  endeavored,  at  the  same  time,  to 
vindicate  Manetho’s  claims  upon  our  notice. 

We  have  seen,  that  some  events  of  this  period  are  positive,  as  we 
possess  monuments  to  attest  them,  no  less  than  the  greatness  of 
Egypt  in  those  days  : nor  can  we  any  longer  tolerate  the  objection, 
that  all  is  fable  in  history  before  Abraham’s  birth. 

We  have  proved,  that,  in  the  wilderness  of  antiquity,  before  the 
birth  of  Abraham,  there  are  many  oases,  such  as  the  pyramids  of 
Egypt  and  Ethiopia,  with  offer  Pharaonic  remains  ; and,  if  we  can- 
not trace  in  every  case  the  ^mnection  between  these  verdant  spots, 
we  have  established,  that  they  are  all  embraced  within  a chronolo- 
gical circle,  the  lower  circumference  of  which  strikes  the  16th  Dy- 
nasty, while  the  upper  rim  of  its  imaginary  orbit  recedes  from  our 
view  into  the  gloom  of  primeval  epochs. 

Who,  30  years  ago,  could  have  foreseen  that  we  should  be  enabled 
to  do  a thousandth  part  as  much  ? and  who  can  now  doubt,  that  every 
future  year  will  present  some  new  planet  in  the  historical  firmament? 

On  turning  to  the  table  of  dynasties,  it  will  be  observed  that  Ma- 
netho  is  met  by  the  tablet  of  Abydos,  at  the  16th  dynasty. 

Reserving  the  more  copious  elucidation  of  this  monument  to  my 
future  oral  lectures,  in  the  course  of  which  I shall  exhibit  a large 
copy  of  the  tablet,  it  is  necessary  at  present  to  explain  that  this  is  a 
hieroglyphical  genealogical  record,  wherein  Ramses  the  3rd — Sesos- 
tris — about  B.  C.  1550,  has  chronicled  fifty-one  Pharaohs,  who  pre- 
ceded him  on  the  throne  of  Egypt.  The  original  of  this  precious 
sculpture  is  now  in  the  British  Museum,  but  in  a very  mutilated 
condition,  compared  with  its  state  25  years  ago,  when  it  stood  in  the 
temple  at  Abydos. 

Tbe  16th  Theban  dynasty  of  five  kings  is  recorded  in  this  tablet ; 
and  from  this  dynasty  downward,  Egyptian  history  is  now  clearly 
defined. 

I would  next  solicit  attention  to  the  reduction  of  the  “ Old  Chron- 
icle whereby  the  first  fifteen  dynasties  are  comprised  in  the  first  443 
years  of  uSothic,  or  canicular  period  or  cynic  cycle  : (I  explained  this 
subject  in  a former  chapter.)  Now,  it  is  tolerably  well  established  by  the 
calculations  of  Champollion  Figeac,  that  this  cycle  began  in  the  Julian 
year  2782  B.  C.;  whence,  if  the  16th  dynasty  began  in  the  year  444th 
of  this  cycle,  its  accession  would  correspond  to  the  year  2339  B.  C. 

Again,  as  Champollion  Figeac  remarks,  “if  we  add  to  the  year 
443  of  this  cycle,  which  was  the  last  year  of  the  15th  dynasty — 1st, 
190  years  for  the  duration  of  the  reigns  of  the  16th  dynasty;  and  2nd, 
the  178  years  that,  with  the  6 years  of  the  28th  dynasty,  are  wanting 
in  the  numerical  details  of  the  Old  Chronicle  (see  Cory’s  Ancient 
Fragments,)  to  reach  the  sum  total  of  36,525  years,  which  the  Chron- 
icle gives  as  the  amount  of  years  reigned,  we  shall  attain,  at  an 
approximation  of  eleven  years,  the  same  results”  that  our  author 
draws  from  other  documents,  to  fix  the  invasion  of  the  Hykshos  with 
the  commencement  of  the  17th  dynasty,  at  the  year  B.  C.  2082  ; and 
to  establish  the  commencement  of  the  18th  dynasty,  at  1822  B.  C. 
Considering  the  remoteness  of  the  epoch,  such  a trifling  difference  as 
eleven  years  “ needs  neither  defence  nor  attack.” 

It  is  probable  that  the  accession  of  Menes — the  annual  rising  of 
the  sacred  Nile — and  the  astronomical  relation  of  the  Sothic  Cycle 
to  the  same — are  three  events  of  coetaneous  occurrence  about  the  year 
2782  B.  C. ; for  this  I refer  particularly  to  the  masterly  calcula- 
tions of  Champollion  Figeac. 

The  method  by  which  the  rise  of  the  16th  dynasty  is  determined 
by  Rosellini  and  by  Champollion,  is  based  however  on  a more  simple 
calculation.  Their  several  estimates  for  this  event  differ  but  two 
years  from  each  other. 

At  the  end  of  each  of  Manetho’s  dynasties  we  have — as  in  the  ta- 
ble— the  sum  total  of  the  years  reigned. 

Two  eras,  upon  which  chronologists  coincide,  are  selected.  One, 
the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  Cambyses,  in  the  year  525  B.  C. : the  other, 
the  conquest  of  Egypt  by  Alexander  the  Great,  B.  C.  332.  With 
each  of  these  well  known  dates,  the  sum  total  of  the  years  reigned 
by  the  last  16  dynasties,  preceding  and  down  to  the  Macedonian,  must 
agree — that  is,  in  the  year  525  B.  C.,  the  26th  Saitic  dynasty  must 
end  ; and  in  the  year  332  the  rule  of  the  Persians  must  cease. 

If  then,  we  count  the  years  given  by  Manetho — as  corrected  by 
the  monuments — for  those  who  reigned  from  the  beginning  of  the 
16th  dynasty,  to  the  end  of  the  31st  dynasty, 

Years. 

wo  obtain,  1940 

To  which  add  the  years  between  Alexander’s  con- 

quest  and  the  birth  of  Christ,  339 

The  16£h  dynasty  began  B.  C.  2272 

Or,  counting  the  years  from  the  beginning  of  the  16th  dynasty,  to 
the  end  of  the  26th  dynasty,  when  Cambyses  conquered  Egypt, 


Years. 

we  obtain  1747 

To  which  add  the  years  between  Cambyses  and  our 

Saviour,  525 

We  obtain,  again,  for  the  16th  dynasty,  B.  C.  2272 

It  will  be  seen,  as  we  proceed,  how  admirably  the  monuments  and 
history  corroborate  this  date  : and  how  perfectly  it  dove-tails  with 
the  chronology  of  the  Bible,  from  Abraham  downward,  when  we  take 
up  the  Hebrew  chronology  for  times  succeeding  Moses.  And  not  to 
expose  myself  to  the  charge  of  inconsistency,  I would  beg  leave  to 
remark,  that  for  the  time  between  Moses  and  the  Deluge,  I follow 
the  Septuagint  version,  as  the  only  scale  reconcilable  with  Egyptian 
history;  because  it  was  in  the  lives  and  generations  prior  to  Abra- 
ham, that  the  Hebrew  texts  of  Scripture  were  altered,  corrupted  and 
curtailed  by  the  Jews,  after  the  advent  of  Christianity:  whereas,  for 
the  period  subsequent  to  Moses,  the  Hebrew  text  would  seem  to  be 
more  accurate  than  for  anterior  times  ; and  from  Moses  downward, 
Archbishop  Usher’s  system  of  chronology  will  probably  be  found  best 
adapted  to  Jewish  history. 

On  the  other  hand,  I am  not  treating  on  Jewish,  but  on  Egyptian 
history  ; and  the  Egyptian  chronological  edifice  from  the  16th  dynasty 
downward,  in  general  principles,  is  built  upon  a rock. 

The  monuments  are  silent  about  the  Hebrews;  and  it  is  highly 
satisfactory  to  be  able  to  show,  that  this  silence  does  not  affect  the 
authority  of  Scripture.  It  has  been  seen  that,  although  the  Bible  is 
silent  on  Egypt  in  the  times  before  Abraham,  we  have  positive  au- 
tocthon  monumental  history  in  that  country  to  fill  up  much  of  the 
vacuum,  and  to  confirm  the  Septuagint  era  of  the  Flood.  It  will  by. 
and-by  become  evident,  that,  although  the  Egyptian  records  are  alto- 
gether silent  about  the  Jewish  sojourn  in  Egypt,  circumstances  will 
enable  us  to  account  for  this  silence ; while  we  meet  with  some  ex- 
traordinary coincidences  confirmatory  of  Biblical  chronology  and 
history  after  the  times  of  Moses,  and  corroborative  of  the  computations 
of  the  Hebrew  version  from  him  downward. 

The  reader  will  indulgently  observe  that,  owing  mainly  to  the  na- 
ture of  our  education  in  America  and  in  England,  we  cannot  divest 
ourselves  of  certain  associations,  whenever  the  word  Egypt  is  used. 
We  instantly  connect  Egypt  with  Scripture  and  with  the  Hebrews  ; 
and  no  foreign  country  certainly  is,  to  the  inspired  writers,  of  such 
vast  consequence  as  Egypt,  from  the  time  of  Abraham  to  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem.  But,  if  any  of  my  readers  had  resided  in  Egypt  as  long 
as  I have,  they  would  readily  perceive,  that  although  some  may  not 
choose  to  disconnect  the  Jews  from  the  Egyptians,  we  can  certainly 
detach  the  Egyptians  from  the  Jews.  Egyptian  local  and  internal 
history  is  as  independent  of  Jewish  history,  prior  to  the  days  of  Solo- 
mon— except  so  far  as  it  may  concern  the  Hebrew  Exode — as  is  the 
history  of  China.  America  has  her  annals  independently  of  England. 
Assyria  rose  and  fell  from  causes  known  to,  and  predicted  by,  but  inde- 
pendently of  the  Hebrew  prophets  ; and,  in  the  same  manner,  Egypt 
has  her  own  chronicles,  her  own  events  and  her  own  annalists,  inde- 
pendently of  all  connection  with  the  Jews,  whom  she  preceded  in 
antiquity  by  at  least  ten  centuries. 

As  an  Egyptian  annalist,  therefore,  I shall,  in  my  future  oral  lec- 
tures, unfold  Egyptian  history  from  the  hieroglyphics.  I shall  touch 
on  every  event  and  on  every  nation,  that  concern  my  subject,  but  I 
shall  treat  of  the  Jews,  as  I do  of  any  other  nation  with  whom  the 
Egyptians  were  brought  into  contact ; without  twisting  confirmations 
from  data  where  none  exist ; or  withholding  the  smallest  of  those 
that  confirm  or  elucidate  an  historical  text  of  Scripture. 

We  begin  then  with  the  16th  Theban  dynasty,  at  B.  C.  2272,  on 
positive  monumental  data,  and  historical  evidences  ; leaving  out  all 
those  observations  which  have  been  so  often  promulgated,  though  in 
the  year  1843  they  do  not  bear  upon  Egyptian  history  at  this  point. 
It  has  been  accurately  observed  by  Champollion  Figeac,  that  his  (and 
Rosellini’s)  computation  of  the  16th  dynasty,  at  B.  C.  2272,  is  rather 
more  conclusive,  than  the  feeble  strictures  of  Syncellus  upon  Mane 
tho,  or  the  explanations  of  Eusebius,  in  regard  to  the  number  of  years 
— 3G,525 — of  the  “ old  chronicle,”  which  concern  neither  the  Deluge, 
nor  Abraham,  nor  history,  nor  positive  chronology,  since  they  are  the 
arbitrary  product  of  purely  mythological  or  astronomical  speculations. 

We  shall  find  ourselves  constantly  bringing  the  dates  on  Egyptian 
monuments  to  correct  or  to  aid  history  in  the  number  of  years  reigned 
by  the  kings  of  Egypt;  for,  as  I remarked  in  a former  chapter,  it 
was  customary  in  all  documents  to  date  the  current  year  from  the 
king’s  accession  to  the  throne. 

With  respect  to  the  number  of  kings  who  ruled  from  the  1st  mo- 
narch of  the  16th  dynasty,  B.  C.  2272,  to  the  close  of  the  31st  Per 
sian  dynasty,  B.  C.  332 — I instituted  a comparison  between  the 
several  historical  lists,  and  find  that  the, 

Old  Chronicle  for  this  period,  gives  Kings  95 

Manetho,  according  to  Eusebius,  “ “ 94 

do  do  Africanus,  “ “ 100 

Canon  of  Syncellus,  adjusted  by  Hales, 

and  extended  by  myself,  “ “ 91 

The  mean  between  these  records  furnishes  about  97  kings.  On 
applying  this  to  Rosellini’s  and  Champollion’s  era  of  the  16lh  dynasty, 
wc  again  obtain  satisfactory  results;  for 


ANCIENT  EGYPT 


62 


The  16th  dynasty  is  given  by  them  at  B . C.  2272 

Take  away  the  years  between  the  31st  dynasty  and  our 

Saviour’s  birth,  332 

there  remain  1940 

which  divided  by  97,  gives  us  20  years  for  the  average  reign  of  each 
king;  an  average  less  by  2J  years,  than  by  Doctor  Hales  and  other 
eminent  mathematicians  is  taken  for  the  mean  length  of  a kingly 
generation.  By  another  comparative  reduction  I made  of  the  “ Old 
Chronicle,”  Manetho,  Eratosthenes,  and  Syncellus’s  Canon,  I obtained 
the  accession  of  the  16th  dynasty,  at  a mean  within  54  years  of  Ro- 
£ sellini’s  calculation — so  that  in  following  the  learned  French  or  Ita- 
lian authorities,  I am  not  only  in  accordance  with  the  mass  of  hie- 
rologists,  but  acting  also  upon  my  own  conviction  of  their  accuracy, 
derived  from  actual  investigation. 

Of^these  ninety-seven  kings,  the  monuments  will  enable  us  to  pro- 
duce about  seventy.five  in  hieroglyphics ; while,  for  the  absence  of 
the  rest,  we  have  to  accuse  the  spoiler  ; and  each  unfound  king  will 
in  his  place  be  readily  accounted  for.  Their  non-appearance  in  hie- 
roglyphics, however,  does  not  in  the  least  affect  the  mode  or  the  accu- 
racy of  these  computations  for  the  10th  dynasty. 

It  is  scarcely  necessary,  after  my  former  remarks  on  Herodotus 
and  Diodorus,  to  repeat,  that  in  matters  of  Egyptian  chronology,  it  is 
but  lost  time  to  consult  them.  Their  details  of  an  individual  king’s 
acts  are  sometimes  correct  and  often  useful,  but  their  lists  are  tissues 
of  anachronisms  irreconcilable  with  the  monuments,  with  other 
chronicles,  or  with  themselves.  Most  of  the  confusion  in  Egyptian 
history  has  arisen  from  the  misconceptions  and  misrepresentations  of 
these  two  Greeks,  who  wrote  on  subjects  they  neither  did  nor  could 
know  much  about. 

THE  16th  DYNASTY  OF  THEBANS, 

Consisting  of  five  Pharaohs,  who  reigned  together  190  years,  com- 
menced B.  C.  2272,  and  ended  B.  C.  2082. 

See  tablet  of  Abydos,  in  my  lecture  room,  Nos.  30,  31,  32,  33,  34. 
It  will  be  observed  that  these  ovals  are  in  the  tablet  obliterated,  but 
Nos.  33  and  34  are  supplied  by  the  genealogical  succession  of  Beni- 
hassan. 

In  a former  chapter  I explained,  that  each  Pharaoh,  after  those  of 
the  earlier  dynasties,  had  two  ovals  or  cartouches  inclosing  his  names ; 
one  of  which,  called  the  prenomen,  contained  his  distinguishing  title, 
snd  is  generally  symbolic — the  other,  called  his  nomen,  contained 
his  proper  name,  which  in  most  cases  is  altogether  phonetic.  It  is 
by  h is  prenomen  that  the  Pharaoh  is  generally  determined  on  a tablet. 

When  once  the  position  of  a prenomen  in  relation  to  other  pre- 
nomina,  is  established  by  a genealogical  tablet,  it  is  generally  easy 
to  find  oti  some  other  monument  a hieroglyphical  legend,  wherein 
the  prenomen  is  connected  with  its  nomen  or  proper  name.  For 
instance,  we  find  No.  33  in  the  tablet  of  Abydos  effaced;  but  still, 
the  former  existence  of  an  owner  for  it,  is  indisputable  ; and  we 
count  him  for  a Pharaoh,  even  without  knowing  his  names. 

The  genealogical  succession  of  Beni-hassan  (which  is  another 
record!  gives  us 


. Pharaoh 


Sun  offered  tq  the  world. 


as  the  title  or  prcnoTnen  of  a king — but  we  are  still  ignorant  of  this 
king’s  proper  name.  Let  us  seek  for  a monument,  whereon  we  can 
find  this  prenomen  associated  with  its  corresponding  nomen.  We 
take  the  granite  obelisk  (vide  obelisk  in  chapter  third,)  that  still 
, marks  the  site  of  Heliopolis.  Here  we  find  this  prenomen  (No.  33 
of  tablets  Abydos  and  Beni-hassan)  coupled  with  this  nomen, 


Son  of  the  Sun. 


OSoRTaSeN. 


Sun  offered  to  the  world — Osortasen — 
mva  and  he  is  our  Osortasen  the  1st — 4th  king 
V J of  16th  dynasty. 

He  was,  up  to  1837,  the  earliest  king  identified  on  the  tablet  of 
Abydos ; but  an  accident  happily  acquainted  us  with  his  predecessor, 
No.  32,  who  is  also  an  obliterated  Pharaoh.  A broken  statue  of  a 
sitting  human  figure  of  dark  red  granite,  was  in  the  possession  of  a 
gentleman  at  Rome.  Of  this  statue,  the  lower  portion,  consisting 
only  of  the  legs  and  the  chair,  was  preserved.  It  was  known  to  be 


Egyptian,  but  was  not  considered  of  any  importance  by  its  proprietor 
Chance  brought  the  learned  hierologists,  Dr.  Lepsius  and  Chcvaiier 
Baron  Bunsen,  in  the  way  of  this  block ; and  on  a hieroglyphical 
legend  down  its  side,  they  read  “ The  King,  Sun  offered  to  thb 
World  (the  prenomen  oval  of  Osortasen  1st)  giver  of  eternal  life, 
has  made  a durable  construction  for  his  father,  Pharaoh,  Sun  of 
Guardianship;  has  made  a statue  in  red  granite,  to  him,  who  rendered 
him  vivifier  for  ever.” 

On  the  other  side  of  the  statue,  a legend  the  same  in  substance  is 
repeated ; but  in  this  legend  the  nomen  oval  is  given  ; and  thus  we 
know  that  the  father  of  (No.  33  of  tablet  of  Abydos,  or  Osortasen  1st,) 
was  “ the  sun  of  guardianship,”  Aian  or  Oan.  One  might  be  tempted 
to  consider  him  a Johannes,  a Ilanna,  or  a John,  so  nearly  does  the 
phonetic  value  approach  the  eastern  sound  of  this  familiar  name. 

Thus,  then,  we  have  gone  back  one  king  more,  and  have  only 
two  blanks  to  fill  in  the  16th  dynasty;  for  No.  34,  though  obliterated 
on  the  tablet  of  Abydos,  is  supplie^Jfrom  Beni-hassan  ; prenomen, 
Sun  perfect  in  justice  ; and  nomen  Amenemhe  ; whom  we  call 
Amenemhe  1st. 

I have  thought  it  would  be  satisfactory  to  the  reader,  to  expound 
the  curious  but  practical  process  by  which  Egyptian  hieroglyphics 
are  read,  and  the  chronology  determined.  Henceforward  we  shall 
find  the  successions  regular  through  the  tablets,  and  where  they  end, 
we  can,  in  most  cases,  produce  other  equally  positive  proofs  from 
other  sources. 

Of  the  first  Osortasen  we  possess  many  very  interesting  records, 
enlightening  us  on  events  unknown  to,  and  unchroniclcd  by  any 
ancient  writers  ; and  it  is  the  pride  of  modern  hierology  of  the  last 
fifteen  years,  to  have  brought  to  light  some  annals  of  a monarch, 
whose  existence  and  name  were  omitted  by  all  historians  ; and  yet, 
whose  deeds  place  him  among  the  greatest  of  kings.  It  is  from  le 
gends  coeval  with  him  that  we  glean  this  information  ; and  when 
we  reflect  that,  in  his  day,  B.C.  2088,  Abraham,  by  the  Hebrew  ver- 
sion, was  not  born  ; it  will  be  seen  how  intensely  interesting  are 
these  resuscitations. 

The  monuments  of  Osortasen  first  begin  in  Nubia,  near  the  se- 
cond Cataract,  where  he  erected  a temple  ; and  a tablet,  exhumed 
from  this  spot  by  the  French  and  Tuscan  commissions,  and  now  at 
Florence,  records  his  victories  over  the  Lybians,  and  over  ten  Afr* 
can  nations,  some  of  whom  must  be  sought  for  toward  the  now-myo 
terious  sources  of  the  Nile.  Another  edifice  was  left  by  him  at  Ili 
eraconpolis  above ‘Eilethyas,  the  last  stone  of  which  was  carried  oft 
for  lime  about  1836.  He  built  the  sanctuary  of  the  temple  at  Kar- 
nac,  where  an  enormous  statue  once  stood  representing  this  king, 
cut  out  of  crystallized  sulphate  of  lime  ! One  of  his  generals  lay 
buried  in  a tomb  at  Beni-has6nn.  An  obelisk  in  the  Fayoom,  and 
the  well  known  obelisk  still  erect  at  Heliopolis,  record  his  name  and 
titles.  Scattered  fragments  bearing  his  legend  are  found  in  the  win- 
dow-sills of  mosques  and  thresholds  of  doors  at  Cairo,  which  Ma- 
hommedan  desecration  has  taken  from  Memphis  and  Heliopolis. 

Excavations  at  Memphis  and  Abydos  have  brought  to  light  Stel® 
with  his  names  ; and  in  the  museums  of  Europe  there  are  many 
relics  of  Osortasen.  We  possess  monuments  which  bear  the  several 
dates  of  the  9th,  13th,  17th,  25th,  42nd,  43rd,  and  44<h  years  of  his 
reign. 

The  summary  of  deductions  to  be  drawn  from  these  facts  is,  that 
Osortasen  was  a great  and  wise  monarch,  who  ruled  the  land  of 
Egypt  with  much  regard  to  the  welfare  of  his  subjects  ; by  whom 
his  memory  was  revered  in  all  after  times.  His  dominion  extended 
into  Ethiopia  and  Nigritia.  He  repressed  the  nomads  of  the  Lybian 
desert.  It  may  be  presumed  that,  toward  the  eastward,  his  Asiatic 
frontier  was  limited  to  the  Suez  Isthmus,  and  Mount  Sinai  peninsula. 
In  his  reign  religion  was  carefully  protected  ; and  the  arts  of  paint- 
ing and  sculpture  reached  a bold  purity  of  style,  unsurpassed  in  exe. 
cution  even  by  the  more  florid  characteristics  of  later  times.  Every 
art  and  every  science  known  to  the  Egyptians  were  fully  developed 
in  his  day. 

The  style  of  architecture  was  grand  and  chaste  ; while  the  columns 
now  termed  Doric,  and  attributed  to  the  Greeks,  were  in  common 
use  in  this  reign,  which  precedes  the  Dorians  by  a thousand  years. 
The  arch,  both  round  and  pointed,  with  its  perfect  keystone,  in  brick 
and  in  stone,  was  well  known  to  the  Egyptians  long  before  this 
period  ; so  that  the  untenable  assertion,  that  the  most  ancient  arch  is 
that  of  the  Cloaca  Magna  at  Rome,  falls  to  the  ground. 

In  architecture,  as  in  everything  else,  the  Greeks  and  the  Romans 
obtained  their  Knowledge  from  their  original  sources  in  Egypt,  where 
still  existing  ruins  attest  priority  of  invention  1000  years  before 
Greece,  and  1500  years  before  Rome.  These  topics  are  now  beyond 
dispute,  and  may  be  found  in  the  pages  of  the  Champollion  school. 
Until  the  last  few  years  they  were  utterly  unknown  in  history. 

It  seems  possible,  however,  that  the  habits  of  good  order,  agricul- 
tural welfare,  civilization,  and  social  refinement,  had  rendered  the 
then  peaceful  inhabitants  of  the  valley  of  the  Nile  unambitious  of 
foreign  extension.  It  would  appear,  as  if  content  with  repressing  the 
inroads  of  the  southern  and  western  nations,  they  thought  more  of 
preserving  and  improving  the  goods  accruing  to  them  from  peaceful 
institutions,  than  of  increasing  their  wealth  by  military  prowess  or 
territorial  extension. 

This  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  fierce  visitation,  which  Providence 
had  then  in  store  for  Egypt,  that  befel  in  the  next  reign. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


6* 


Although,  of  course,  not  the  slightest  record  of  the  event  is  to  be 
found  in  the  hieroglyphics,  modern  chronologists  consider  the  visit  of 
Abraham  to  have  taken  place  in  this  or  the  preceding  reign.  All 
seem  to  agree  that  the  patriarch  sought  refuge  from  the  famine,  at 
that  time  in  Canaan,  amid  the  well-stored  granaries  of  Egypt,  during  the 
16th  dynasty.  I confess,  that  there  are  many  objections  to  this  view 
arising  from  an  infinitude  of  circumstances.  The  main  difficulties 
proceed  from  the  diversity  of  computation  of  Scriptural  chronology ; 
and  the  doubt  as  to  the  epoch  of  Abraham  within  500  years.  For 
Egyptian  chronology,  we  have  so  many  land-marks,  that  now-a-days 
the  hierologist  can  err  but  little  in  his  date  for  the  16th  dynasty  ; and 
therefore  we  are  compelled  to  adapt  the  Biblical  chronology  to  the 
monuments.  This  can  be  done  satisfactorily,  when  we  select  those 
Biblical  authorities  that  best  accord  with  hieroglyphic  history. 

My  oral  lectures  will  touch  on  the  several  computations  of  Cham- 
nollion,  Rosellini  and  Wilkinson. 

In  any  case,  if  Abraham  visited  Egypt  during  this  dynasty,  he  was 
received  with  hospitality  and  kindness ; although  he  made  use  of 
a subterfuge,  that,  to  say  the  least,  was  reprehensible. 

The  Pharaoh  of  Egypt  behaved  to  him  with  manly  generosity,  and 
dismissed  him  and  all  his  people  “ rich  in  cattle,  in  silver,  and  in  gold.” 
This  says  volumes  for  the  land  etyled  the  “region  of  purity  and  just, 
ice”  in  those  most  remote  periods.  Not  only  did  Abraham  retain  all 
his  wealth,  but  he  was  allowed  to  take  it,  and  to  go  his  way  across 
the  desert  toward  Mamre  near  Hebron,  unmolested,  and  enriched 
with  presents.  We  may  infer  that  Egypt  was  great  and  wealthy, 
when  cattle,  silver,  and  gold  did  not  tempt  the  inhabitants  to  violate 
the  rights  of  hospitality.  Nor  can  Egyptian  forbearance  be  attri- 
buted to  any  other  feeling  than  that  of  justice  to  the  stranger  ; as 
Abraham’s  armed  force  [his  “ trained  servants”]  many  years  after, 
did  not  exceed  318  men  ; whereas,  the  Egyptians  possessed  regular 
nrmies,  vast  cities  ; and  some  centuries  previously,  had  devoted 
100,000  men  solely  to  erect  one  pyramidal  tomb. 

Abraham  doubtless  increased  his  stock  in  Egypt,  and  likewise 
hired  Egyptian  attendants  ; for  his  handmaid  Hagar  was  an  Egyptian 
female  : their  son  Ishmael,*  was  therefore  half  Egyptian  in  blood ; 
and  to  evince  his  attachment  to  his  maternal  origin,  this  son  also 
espoused  an  Egyptian,  when  he  settled  in  the  wilderness  of  Paran. 

These  circumstances,  though  in  themselves  trifling,  go  far  in  sup- 
port of  the  Asiatic  origin  and  Caucasian  race  of  the  early  Egyptians; 
who,  while  they  do  not  appear  to  have  looked  upon  Abraham  as  a 
Gentile,  were  by  him  considered  worthy  of  his  family.  This  would 
probably  not  have  been  the  case,  had  the  Egyptians  been  Africans. 
There  is  in  fact,  every  Scriptural  reason  to  believe,  that  the  early 
Egyptians  and  Abraham’s  family  were  on  the  most  friendly  footing. 

The  relation  between  Abraham  and  the  Pharaoh  of  Egypt,  was 
6uch  as  between  a Bddawee  Sheykh  and  Mahommed  Ali  of  the 
present  times.  The  obligation  was  exclusively  on  the  side  of  the 
Hebrew  patriarch  ; who,  apart  from  his  personal  merits,  as  a vene- 
rable and  pious  man — a distinguished  guest  of  the  Egyptians — must, 
in  other  points  of  comparison  to  the  monarch,  whose  sway  extended 
1500  miles  along  the  Nile,  have  been  quite  insignificant. 

It  is  on  these  grounds,  that  the  silence  of  Egyptian  Annals  in  re- 
spect to  Abraham  is  readily  explained. 

To  proceed  with  Egyptian  history — the  successor  to  Osortasen  the 
1st,  was  Amencmhe  1st ; but  few  of  his  remains  have  come  down 
to  us,  owing  to  the  catastrophe  that  put  an  end  to  his  life  and  reign  ; 
no  less  than  to  the  happiness  of  Egypt  for  a period  of  260  years. 
Let  us  take  up  Manetho  preserved  to  us  by  the  Jewish  historian  Jose- 
phus, after  observing  that  “ Amencmhe  1st,”  agrees  chronologically 
with  Timaus — Choncharis. 

Fragments  of  Manetho’s  history;  preserved  by  Josephus  in  his 
defence  of  the  Jews  against  Apion,  (extracted  rom  Cory’s  “ Ancient 
Fragments.”) 

M ANETHO 

OF  THE  SHEPHERD  imNGS. 

We  had  formerly  a king  whose  name  wi  Timaus.  In  his  time  it  came 
to  pass,  I know  not  how,  that  God  was  disn.eased  with  us  : and  there  came 
up  from  the  East  in  a strange  manner  nr;n  of  an  ignoble  race,  who  had  the 
confidence  to  invade  our  country,  and  eas  ,y  subdued  it  hy  their  power  with- 
out a battle.  And  when  they  had  our  rulers  in  their  hands,  thej’  burnt  our 
cities,  and  demolished  the  temples  of  the  gods,  and  inflicted  every  kind  of 
harbari'.y  upon  the  inhabitants,  slay ing  some,  and  reducing  the  wives  and 
children  of  others  to  a state  of  slavery.  At  length  they  made  one  of  them- 
selves king,  whose  name  was  Salatis  : he  lived  at  Memphis,  and  rendered 
both  the  upper  and  lower  regions  of  Egypt  tributary,  and  stationed  garrisons 
in  places  which  were  best  adapted  for  that  purpose.  But  he  directed  his 
attention  principally  to  the  security  of  the  eastern  frontier;  for  he  regarded 
with  suspicion  the  increasing  power  of  the  Assyrians,  who  he  foresaw  would 
one  day  undertake  an  invasion  of  the  kingdom.  And  observing  in  the  Saite 
nome,  upon  the  east  of  the  Bubastite  channel,  a city  which  from  some  an- 
cient theological  reference  was  called  Avaris : and  finding  it  admirably 
adapted  to  his  purpose,  he  rebuilt  it,  and  strongly  fortified  it  with  walls,  and 
garrisoned  it  with  a force  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  thousand  men  completely 
armed.  To  this  city  Salatis  repaired  in  summer  time,  to  collect  his  tribute, 
and  pay  his  troops,  and  to  exercise  his  soldiers  in  order  to  strike  terror  into 
foreigners. 

* Isiimakl  is  undoubtedly  the  father  of  a large  proportion  of  the  Arabs  ; but  the 
Arabian  peninsula  must  have  been  numerously  inhabited  even  in  his  day,  by  the  do 
■"endants  of  Joxtan  &c..  Every  circumstance  confirms  the  intimate  relations  that  in 
the  remotest  times  exlswd  between  JUgypt  and  Arabia. 


And  Salatis  died  after  a reign  of  nineteen  years  : after  him  reigned  another 
king,  who  was  called  Beon,  forty-four  years  : and  he  was  succeeded  by 
Apachnaswho  reigne  I thirty-six  years  ar.d  seven  months  : after  him  reigned 
Apophis  sixty-one  years,  and  lanias  fifty  years  and  one  month.  After  all 
these  reigned  Assis  forty-nine  years  and  two  months.  These  six  were  the 
first  rulers  among  them,  and  during  the  whole  period  of  tlie.r  dynasty,  they 
made  war  upon  the  Egyptians  with  the  hope  of  exterminating  the  whole  race. 

All  this  nation  was  styled  Hycsos,  that  is  the  Shepherd  Kings  ; fur  the  first 
syllable,  Hyc,  in  the  sacred  dialect,  denotes  a king,  and  Sos  signifies  » 
shepherd,  but  this  only  according  to  the  vulgar  tongue  ; and  of  these  is  com- 
pounded the  term  Hycsos : sottte  say  they  were  Arabians.  This  people 
who  were  thus  denominated  Shepherd  Kings,  and  their  descendants  retained 
possession  of  Egypt  during  the  period  of  five  hundred  and  eleven  years. 

After  these  things  he  relates  that  the  kings  of  Thehais  and  of  the  other  pro 
vinces  of  Egypt,  made  an  insurrection  against  the  f-hepherds,  and  that  a 
long  and  mighty  war  was  carried  on  between  them,  till  the  Shepherds  were 
overcome  by  a king  whose  name,  was  Alisphragmuthosis,  and  they  were  by 
him  driven  out  of  the  other  parts  of  Egypt,  and  hemmed  up  in  a place  con- 
taining about  ten  thousand  acres,  which  was  called  Avaris.  All  this  tract 
(says  Manetho)  the  Shepherds  surrounded  with  a vast  and  strong  wall,  that 
they  might  retain  all  their  property  and  their  prey  within  a bold  or  strength. 

And  Thummosis,  the  son  of  Alisphragmuthosis,  endeavored  to  force  them 
hy  a siege,  and  beleagured  the  place  with  a body  of  four  hundred  and  eighty 
thousand  men  ; but  at  the  moment  he  despaired  of  reducing  them  by  siege, 
they  agreed  to  a capitulation,  that  they  would  leave  Egypt,  and  should  be 
permitied  to  go  out  without  molestation  wheresoever  they  pleased.  And, 
according  to  this  stipulation,  they  departed  from  Egypt  with  all  their  fami- 
lies and  effects,  in  number  not  less  than  two  hundred  and  forty  thousand,  and 
bent  their  way  through  the  desert  toward  Syria.  But  as  they  stood  in  fear 
of  the  Assyrians,  who  had  then  dominion  over  Asia,  they  built  a city  in  that 
country  which  is  now  called  Judaea,  of  sufficient  size  to  contain  this  multi- 
tude of  men,  and  named  it  Jerusalem. 

(In  another  book  of  the  Egyptian  histories  Manetho  says)  That  this 
people,  who  are  here  called  Shepherds,  in  their  sacred  books  were  also  styled 
Captives. t 

After  the  departure  of  this  nation  of  Shepherds  to  Jerusalem,  Tethmosis, 
the  king  of  Egypt  who  drove  them  out,  reigned  twenty-five  years  and  fi  ur 
months,  and  then  died  : after  him  his  son  Chehron  took  the  government  into 
his  hands  for  thirteen  years  : after  him  reigned  Atnenophis  for  twenty  years 
and  seven  months:  then  his  sister  Amesses  twenty-one  years  and  nine 
mouths:  she  was  succeeded  by  Mephres,  who  reigned  twelve  years  and  nine 
months:  after  him  Mephramulhosis twenty-five  years  and  ten  months  : then 
Thmosts  reigned  nine  years  and  eight  months  ; after  whom  Amenophis 
thirty  years  and  ten  months;  then  Orus  thirty-six  years  and  five  months  : 
then  his  daughter  Acenchres  twelve  years  and  one  month  ; afterwards  her 
brother  Rathotis  nine;  then  Accncheres  twelve  years  and  five  months; 
another  Acencheres  twelve  years  and  three  months  ; after  him  Armais  four 
years  and  one  month  ; after  him  reigned  R amesses  one  year  and  four  months  ; 
then  Armesses  the  son  of  Miammous  sixty-six  years  and  two  months  ; after 
him  Amenophis  nineteen  years  and  six  months  ; and  he  was  succeeded  by 
Sethosis  and  Ramesses.  he  maintained  an  army  of  cavalry  and  a naval  force. 

This  king  (Sethosis)  appointed  his  brother  Armais  his  viceroy  ovei 
Egypt : he  also  invested  him  with  all  the  authority  of  a king,  with  only  three 
restrictions;  that  he  should  not  wear  the  diadem,  nor  interfere  with  the  queen, 
the  mother  of  his  children,  nor  abuse  the  royal  concubines.  Sethosis  then 
made  an  expedition  against  Cyprus  and  Phoenicia,  and  waged  war  with  the  f 
Assyrians  and  Medes  ; and  he  subdued  them  all,  some  by  force  of  arms,  and 
others  without  a battle,  by  the  mere  terror  of  his  power.  And  being  elated 
with  his  success,  he  advanced  still  more  confidently,  and  overthrew  the 
cities,  and  subdued  the  countries  of  the  East. 

But  Armais,  who  was  left  in  Egypt,  took  advantage  of  the  opportunity,  and 
fearlessly  perpetrated  all  those  acts  which  his  brother  had  enjoined  him  not 
to  commit : he  violated  the  queen,  and  continued  an  unrestrained  intercourse 
with  the  concubines;  and  at  the  persuasion  of  his  friends  he  assumed  the 
diadem,  and  openly  opposed  his  brother. 

But  the  ruler  over  the  priests  of  Egypt  by  letters  sent  an  account  to 
Sethosis,  and  informed  him  of  w hat  had  happened,  and  how  his  brother  had 
set  himielf  up  in  opposition  to  his  power.  Upon  this  Sethosis  immediately 
returned  to  Pelusiutn,  and  recovered  his  kingdom.  The  country  of  Egypt 
took  its  name  from  Sethosis,  who  was  called  also  TFgyptus,  as  was  his 
brother  Armais  known  by  the  name  of  Danaus. — Joseph,  contr.  App,  lib.  1. 
c.  14,  15. 

OF  THE  ISRAELITES. 

This  king  (Amenophis)  was  desirous  of  beholding  the  gods,  as  Orris,  one 
of  his  predecessors  in  the  kingdom,  had  seen  them.  And  he  communicated 
his  desire  to  a priest  of  the  same  name  with  himself,  Amenophis,  the  son  of 
Papis,  who  seemed  to  partake  of  the  divine  nature,  both  in  his  wisdom  and 
knowledge  of  futurity;  and  Amenophis  returned  him  answer,  that  it  was  in 
his  power  to  behold  the  gods,  if  he  would  cleanse  the  w hole  country  of  the 
lepers  and  other  unclean  persons  that  abounded  in  it. 

Well  pleased  with  this  information,  the  king  gathered  together  out  of 
Egypt  all  that  labored  under  any  defect  in  body,  to  the  amount  of  eighty 
thousand,  and  sent  them  to  the  quarries,  which  are  situated  on  the  east  side 
of  the  Nile,  that  they  might  work  in  them  and  be  separated  from  the  rest  of 
the  Egyptians.  And  (he  says)  there  were  among  them  some  learned  priests 
who  were  affected  with  leprosy.  And  Amenophis  the  wise  man  and  prophet, 
fearful  least  the  vengeance  of  the  gods  should  fall  both  on  himself  and  on  the 
king,  if  it  should  appear  that  violence  had  been  offered  them,  added  this  also 
in  a prophetic  spirit — that  certain  people  would  come  to  the  assistance  of 
these  unclean  persons,  and  would  subdue  Egypt,  and  hold  it  in  possession 
for  thirteen  years.  These  tidings  however  he  dared  not  to  communicate  to 
the  king,  but  left  in  writing  what  should  come  to  pass,  and  destroyed  himself, 
at  which  the  king  was  fearfully  distressed. 

(Afler  which  he  writes  thus,  word  for  word  :)  When  those  that  were  sent 
to  work  in  the  quarries  had  continued  for  some  time  in  that  miserable  state, 
the  king  was  petitioned  to  set  apart  for  their  habitation  and  prelection  the  city 


* Bryant— vol.  iv.,  p.  4G1— gives  a curious  note  about  this  Been  ; which  rending,  he 
says,  is  a blunder  of  ancient  transcription.  There  was-  a second  king  afler  Salatis  * 
but,  as  the  chroniclers  could  not  make  out  his  name,  they  wrote  him  dowm  a - I) . u osy 
— “ the  second  king  is  anonymous !” 

t The  names  of  the  Hykshos  kings  have  not  been  found  in  hieroglyphic*  There  ar« 
two  or  three  ovals,  among  the  “ unplaced  kings,”  which  present  son<e  similarities ; such 
as  A sis,  Assa,  which  have  been  taken  for  Jlselh— I’xpi  for  popKs  ; bn  1 rej-en*  the 
resemblance.  Champollion  Figeac.  mentions  a hieratic  papyrus,  of  die  Sesumv-d# 
period,  which  lie  considers  to  contain  the  name  of  Apopkis. 


M 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


of  Avaris,  which  had  been  left  vacant  by  the  Shepherds ; and  he  granted 
them  their  desire:  now  this  city,  according  to  the  theology  above,  i*  a 
Typiionian  city. 

But  when  they  had  taken  possession  of  the  city,  and  found  it  well  adapted 
for  a revolt,  they  appointed  for  themselves  a ruler  from  among  the  priests  of 
Heliopolis,  one  whose  name  was  Osarsiph,  and  they  bound  themselves  by 
oath  that  they  would  be  obedient.  Osarsiph  then,  in  the  first  place  enacted  t 
law,  that  they  should  neither  worship  the  gods,  nor  abstain  from  any  of  those 
sacred  animals  which  the  Egyptians  hold  in  veneration,  but  sacrifice  arid 
slay  them  all ; and  that  they  should  connect  themselves  with  none  but  such 
as  were  of  that  confederacy.  When  he  had  made  such  laws  as  these,  and 
many  others  of  a tendency  directly  in  opposition  to  the  customs  of  the 
Egyptians,  he  gave  orders  that  they  should  employ  the  multitude  of  hands  in 
rebuilding  the  walls  about  the  city,  and  hold  themselves  iH  readiness  for  war 
with  Amenophis  the  king.  He  then  took  into  his  counsels  some  others  of 
the  priests  and  unclean  persons  : and  sent  embassadors  to  the  cily  called 
Jerusalem,  to  those  Shepherds  who  had  been  expelled  by  Telhmosis;  and 
he  informed  them  of  the  position  of  their  alFairs,  and  requested  them  to 
come  up  unanimously  to  his  assistance  in  this  war  with  Egypt.  He  also 
promised  in  the  first  place  to  reinstate  them  in  their  ancient  city  and  country 
Avaris,  and  provide  a plentiful  maintenance  for  their  host,  and  fight  for  them 
as  occasion  might  require;  and  assured  them  that  he  would  easily  reduce 
the  country  under  their  dominion.  The  Shepherds  received  this  message 
with  the  greatest  joy,  and  quickly  mustered  to  the  number  of  two  hundred 
thousand  men,  and  came  up  lo  Avaris. 

Now  Amenophis  the  king  of  Egypt,  when  he  was  informed  of  their  inva- 
sion, was  in  great  consternation,  remembering  the  prophecy  of  Amenophis, 
the  son  of  Papis.  And  he  assembled  the  armies  of  the  Egyptians,  and  hav- 
ing consulted  with  the  leaders,  he  commanded  the  sacred  animals  to  be 
brought  to  him,  especially  those  which  were  held  in  more  particular  venera- 
tion in  the  temples,  and  he  forthwith  charged  the  priests  to  conceal  the  images 
of  their  gods  with  the  utmost  care.  Moreover  he  placed  his  son  Sethos,  w ho 
was  also  called  Harnesses  from  his  father  Rampscs,  being  then  but  five  years 
old,  under  the  protection  of  a faithful  adherent  ; and  marched  with  the  rest 
of  the  Egyptians  being  three  hundred  thousand  warriors,  against  the  enemy, 
who  advanced  to  meet  him ; but  he  did  not  attack  them,  thinking  it  would  be 
to  wage  war  against  the  gods,  but  reiurned,  and  came  again  to  Memphis, 
where  he  took  Apis  and  the  other  sacred  animals  he  had  sent  for,  and  re- 
treated immediately  into  Ethiopia  together  with  all  his  army,  and  all  the 
multitude  of  the  Egyptians  ; for  the  king  of  Ethiopia  was  under  obligations 
to  him.  He  wss  therefore  kindly  received  bv  the  king,  who  took  care  of  all 
the  inultitud  •.  that  was  wilh  him,  while  the  country  supplied  what  was  ne- 
cessary for  their  subsistence.  He  also  allotted  to  him  cities  and  villages 
during  his  exile,  which  was  to  continue  from  its  beginning  during  the  pre- 
destined thirteen  years.  Moreover  he  pitched  a camp  for  an  Ethiopian 
army  upon  the  borders  of  Egypt,  as  a protection  to  king  Amenophis. 

In  the  meantime,  while  such  was  the  state  of  things  in  Ethiopia,  the 
people  of  Jerusalem,  who  had  come  down  with  the  unclean  of  the  Egyptians, 
treated  the  inhabitants  with  sue!  barbarity,  that  those  who  witnessed  their 
impieties  believed  that  their  joint  sway  was  more  execrable  than  that  which 
the  Shepherds  had  formerly  exercised  alone.  For  they  not  only  set  fire  to 
the  cities  and  villages,  but  committed  every  kind  of  sacrilege,  and  destroyed 
the  images  of  the  gods,  and  roasted  and  fed  upon  those  sacred  animals  that 
were  worshipped  ; and  having  compelled  the  priests  and  prophets  to  kill  and 
sacrifice  them,  they  cast  them  naked  crut  of  the  country.  It  is  said  also  that 
the  priest,  who  ordained  their  polity  and  laws,  was  by  birth  of  Heliopolis, 
and  his  name  Osarsiph,  from  Osiris  the  god  of  Heliopolis  ; but  that  when  he 
went  over  to  these  people  his  name  was  changed,  and  he  was  called  Moyses. 
— Joseph.  contr.  App.  lib.  I.  c.  26. 

OF  THE  SHEPHERDS  AND  ISRAELITES. 

(Manetho  again  says:)  After  this  Amenophis  returned  from  Ethiopia 
with  a great,  force,  and  Rampses  also,  his  son,  with  other  forces,  and  en- 
countering the  Shepherus  and  the  unclean  people,  they  defeated  them  and 
slew  multitudes  of  them,  and  pursued  them  lo  the  bounds  of  Syria. — Joseph, 
eonlr.  App.  lib.  I.  c.  27. 

Having  now  laid  before  the  reader  all  the  preliminary  matter,  ne- 
cessary to  the  clear  comprehension  of  Egyptian  paleography,  from  the 
remotest  times  to  the  accession  of  the  16th  dynasty  of  Diospolitans, 
I have  reached  the  boundary  proposed  in  the  publication  of  the  pre- 
sent chapters. 

In  my  future  oral  Lectures  all  remaining  subjects,  that  experience 
may  prove  to  be  interesting  to  the  public,  will  be  progressively  de- 
veloped : and  to  render  the  chronological  portion  intelligible,  I 
subjoin  a 

GENERAL  TABLE 

OF  THE  LAST  SIXTEEN  DYNASTIES  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  EGYPT, 

ACCORDING  TO  THE  HIEROGLYPHICS  t 

Being  an  Abstract  of  Professor  Rosklmni’s  Chronology,  with  some  later  emenda- 
tions of  Dr.  Lkkmans,  and  others. 


XVI.  DYNASTY  OF  FIVE  THEBAN  KINGS. 


bt  X 
c £ • 

5-gl 

«>  4>  £ 
C -n  S 

ill 

" =3  o 

EcJ 

£ 

Older  of  the  Kings  in 
their  respective 
Dynasties. 

Names  of  the  Kings  ac- 
cording to  the  original 
Monuments. 

Names  of  the  Kings  ac' 
cording  to  Ancient 
Writers. 

Years  reigned  by 
each  King. 

Years 

before 

Christ. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

1 

I. 

\ 

2272 

2 

II. 

>140 

3 

III. 

Aian. 

....... 

) 

2132 

4 

IV. 

OSORTASEN  I. 

Amesses,  Amosis. 

44 

2186 

5 

V. 

A. MENEM  HE  I. 

Timaus,  Concharis. 

6 

2082 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  190 


XVII.  DYNASTY  OF  SIX  SHEPHERD  KINGS, 

Or  Hylcs/ios  in  Lower  Egypt. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

I. 

Salatis. 

19 

II. 



B.  Anon  ? 

44 

III. 

Apachnas. 

36M7 

IV. 

Apophis. 

61 

V. 

Ianias. 

50  I 

VI. 

Aseth. 

49  2 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  259  ” 10 


LEGITIMATE  XVII.  DYNASTY  OF  SIX  THEBAN  KINGS, 

Who  ruled  over  the  Upper  Provinces  ofEgypt,  contemporarily  with  the  Hi'/cshvs,  who 
possessed  the  Lower. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

6 

I. 

Amenemhe  II.* 

28 

2082 

7 

II. 

OSORTASEN  II. 

8 

III. 

OSORTASEN  III. 

14 

9 

IV. 

Amenemhe  III. 

44 

10 

V. 

“ Sol  vocatus  in  justi- 

tia.” 

11 

VI. 

Aahmes,  Thotlimosis. 

Misphragmuthosis. 

22 

1822 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  260 


THE  XVIIIth  DYNASTY  OF  17  THEBAN  KINGS, 
Occupied  the  Pharaonic  throne  during  the  most  brilliant  and  impor 
tant  period  of  Egyptian  history.  The  reestablishment  of  supreme 
power  on  the  expulsion  of  the  Hykshos ; the  erection  of  the  most 
magnificent  edifices;  the  conquests  in  Africa  far  into  Nigritia,  in 
Asia  Minor  to  Cholcis  on  the  Euxine,  and  through  Central  Asia  into 
Hindostan  ; with  the  sojourn  and  Exodus  of  the  Israelites,  combine 
to  render  this  portion  of  the  page  of  Nilotic  history  teeming  with 
interest.  Four  parallel  hieroglyphical  lists  exist  to  confirm  and  cor- 
rect the  fragments  of  Manetho,  viz.:  the  Tablet  of  Ahydos,  the  Pro- 
cession of  the  Samsessium,  the  Procession  of  Medeenet-Iiaboo,  and 
the  Tomb  of  Gurnah. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

12 

I. 

Amunoph  I. 

Amosis,  Thetmosis. 

26M4 

1822 

13 

II. 

Thothmes  I. 

Chebron. 

13 

1796 

14 

III. 

Thothmes  II. 

Amenophis. 

20 

1783 

15 

IV. 

Amense,  queen, 

Amenses.  1 

16 

17 

Thothmes  III. 
Amenemhe  IV. 

) successive  hus.  1 
> bands  of  queen  j 

S Amense.  J 

21 

9 

1762 

18 

V. 

Thothmes  IV. + 

Mephres,  Mceris. 

12 

9 

1740 

19 

VI. 

Amunoph  II. 

Mephrathutmosis. 

Tmosis. 

25 

10 

1727 

20 

VII. 

Thothmes  V. 

9 

8 

1702 

21 

VIII. 

Amunoph  III. 

Amenophis,  Memnon 

30 

10 

1692 

22 

IX. 

H6r, 

Ilorus. 

36 

5 

1661 

23 

X. 

Tmauiiot,  queen, 

Achenkeres. 

12 

1 

1625 

24 

XI. 

Ramses  I. 

Rathotis,  Athoris. 

9 

1613 

25 

XII. 

Menephtiia  I. 

two  Akencheres. 

24 

8 

1604 

26 

XIII. 

Ramses  II. 

Armais,  Armesses. 

C Ramses,  Sesos-  1 

J4 

1579 

27 

XIV. 

Ramses  III. 

J tris,  Sesoosis,  > 
( Osymandias.  ) 

66 

2 

1565 

1499 

28 

XV. 

Menephtiia  II. 

Armessis,  Miammun. 

3 

29 

XVI. 

Menephtha  III. 
Siphthah  and 

Amenophis.  ) 

19 

6 

1496 

30 

Taosra. 

; 

1476 

31 

XVII. 

Remerri,  Uerri. 

2 

5 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  348 


XIX.  DYNASTY  OF  SIX  THEBAN  KINGS. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

32 

I. 

Ramses  IV. 

Sethos- ASgyptus. 

55 

1474 

33 

II. 

Ramses  V. 

Rapsaches,  Rampses. 

34 

III. 

Ramses  VI. 

Ammenephthes. 

35 

IV. 

Ramses  VII. 

Rameses. 

36 

V. 

Ramses  VIII. 

Ammenemes.  [teus. 

37 

VI. 

Ramses  IX. 

Thuoris,  Polibius,  Pro- 

1280 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  194 


* The  objection  to  Roskllini’s  and  Champollion  Fiokac’s  arrangement  of  the 
Shepherd  Kings,  propounded  by  the  erudite  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson  (in  “Manners  and 
Customs  ” vol.lst.  page  45)  which  is  bused  on  the  “ Tnhlet  of  Victories”  oHlns  king, 
brought  by  Mr.  Burton  from  Wndee  Gasobs,  does  not  appear  to  be  conclusive:  for 
apart  from  the  reading  of  the  name  of  Fount,  as  the  territorial  designation  ol  this  con- 
quered nation,  in  which  I cannot  agree  ; there  is  not  only  no  absolute  necessity  to  con- 
sider these  Pount  to  be  a tribe  at  that  moment  inhabiting  Asia  : hut,  associated  as  they 
are  in  Sir  J G Wilkinson’s  copy  of  the  procession  of  nations  tributary  to  Tliotines4th 
(W.— ■ vol.l,  pi.  62.  fig.  5,  and  pi.  IV.,  1st  line)  no  less  than  in  Mr.  Hoskins’s  colored  coy. 
of  the  same  subject,  with  tribes  and  productions  exclusively  African,  they  ore  evident.y 
a Caucasian  family  settled  in  some  part  of  northeastern  Africa.  1 hey  may  be  Upper 
Lyhians,  especially  if  their  name  will  bear  the  reading  of  Pone -t-Kah.0)  Nor  do  Ro- 
sellini  orClmmpollion  refer  to  the  objection ; perhaps,  however,  in  consequence  ot  tha 
absence  oftliis  entire  subject  in  the  French  and  Tuscan  works. 

t In  a preceding  chapter,  I explained,  that  this  arrangement  is  liable  to  modification 
if  the  tablet  referred  to  he  of  the  42nd  year  of  Thothmes  4th  Morris. 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


65 


XX.  DYNASTY  OF  TWELVE  THEBAN  KINGS. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

"38 

i. 

Ramses  X. 

at  least. 

4 

1280 

39 

ii. 

Ramses  XL 

40 

hi. 

Ramses  XII. 

41 

IV. 

Amenemes 

. 

42 

V. 

Ramses  XIII. 

43 

VI. 

Ramses  XIV. 

at  least. 

33 

VI. 

VIII. 

IX. 

44 

X. 

Ramses  XV. 

45 

XI. 

Amensi-Hrai.H6r. 

• • > • • t 

46 

XII. 

Phisham. 

1102 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  178 


XXI.  DYNASTY  OF  SEVEN  TANITE  KINGS. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

47 

I. 

Manduftep  ? 

Smendis. 

26 

1102 

48 

II. 

Aasen  ?* 

Psusennes  I. 

46 

1076 

III. 

Nophercheres. 

4 

1030 

IV. 

Amenophthis. 

9 

1026 

V. 

Osorchor. 

6 

1017 

VI. 

Psinaches. 

9 

1011 

VII. 

Psusennes  II. 

30 

1002 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  130 


XXII.  DYNASTY  OF  NINE  BUBASTITE  KINGS. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

49 

1. 

Shesiionk  I. 

Shishak,  Sesonchis 

21 

972 

50 

II. 

OSORKON  I. 

Osoroth,  Osorthon. 

15 

951 

51 

III. 

SllESHONK  II. 

. . . • • . 

29 

936 

52 

IV. 

OSORKON  II 



53 

V. 

SllESHONK  III. 

54 

VI. 

Takelloth  I. 

Takellothis. 

25 

55 

VII. 

OsORKON  III. 

56 

VIII. 

Takellotii  II. 

57 

IX. 

Osorkon  IV. 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  120 


XXIII.  DYNASTY  OF  FOUR  TANITE  KINGS. 


l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

I. 

Petubastes. 

40 

852 

II. 

Osorcho. 

8 

812 

III. 

Psammus. 

10 

804 

IV. 

Zet. 

31 

794 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  89 


XXIV.  DYNASTY  OF  ONE  SAITIC  KING. 


B.  C 


Bonchoris,Bocchoris,|  44  | 761 


XXV.  DYNASTY  OF  THREE  ETHIOPIAN  KINGS. 


The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  44 


XXVI.  DYNASTY  OF  NINE  SAITIC  KINGS. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

66 

I. 

Kambeth. 

Cambyses. 

3 

525 

11. 

The  Magians. 

M.  7 

522 

67 

III. 

Ntakiush. 

Darius,  Hytaspes. 

36 

68 

IV. 

Khsheersha. 

Xerxes,  I. 

21 

485 

69 

V. 

Artksheersha. 

Artaxerxes,  Longi- 

40 

464 

manus. 

VI. 

Xerxes,  II. 

2 

424 

VII. 

Sogdianus. 

7 

VIII. 



Darius.Nothus. 

19 

* I consider  Manduftep,  and  Aasen  to  bo  “unplaced  kings",  belonging  to  Dynasties 
►nor  to  the  16th. 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.C. 

70 

I. 

Hor,-nasht-Hbai 

Amyirtheus 

6 

404 

XXIX.  DYNASTY  OF  FIVE  MENDESIAN  KINGS. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.C. 

71 

I. 

Nophrophth. 

Nepherites. 

6 

398 

72 

II. 

Haxor. 

Achoris. 

13 

392 

73 

III. 

Psimaut. 

Psammuthis. 

1 

379 

74 

IV. 

Naifnui  ? 

Anapherites. 

M.  4 

V. 

Muthin. 

1 

378 

XXVII.  DYNASTY  OF  EIGHT  PERSIAN  KINGS. 


The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  120  4 

XXVIII.  DYNASTY  OF  ONE  SAITIC  KING. 


The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  21  4 


XXX.  DYNASTY  OF  THREE  SEBENNITIC  KINGS. 


75 


I. 

II 

III 


Nashtanebf. 


Nectanebo  I. 
Theos  Taciios. 
Nectanebo  II. 
The  entire  Dynasty  reigned,  years, 


B.C. 


377 

359 

357 


38 


XXXI.  DYNASTY  OF  THREE  PERSIAN  KINGS. 


B.  C 
~339 
337 


I Artaxerxes,  Ochus.  12 

II Arses,  Arsos.  3? 

Ill Darius III.Codornanus|3  ? | 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years  8 7 332 

Conquest  of  Egypt  by  Alexander  the  Great.  B.  C.  332. 


List  of  the  Ptolemaic  Kings  of  Egypt,  successors  to  Alexander 
the  Great,  whose  names  have  been  inscribed  in  Hieroglyphics  on 
Egyptian  monuments. 


No. 


1 

2 | 3 

4 

5 

B.C. 

57 

I.j  SlIABAK. 

Sabbacon,  Sabnco. 

12 

719 

58 

II.'  Shabatok 

Sevechus,  Sethon,  Sua 

12 

707 

59 

III.|  Tahraka. 

Tarakus,  Tarhaka. 

20 

695 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

B.  C. 

I. 

Stephinates. 

7 

675 

II. 

Nerepsus. 

6 

668 

111. 

Nechao,  1 

8 

662 

60 

IV. 

PSAMETIK  I. 

Psaim™  etichus. 

45 

654 

61 

V. 

Neko  II. 

Netno. 

6 

609 

62 

VI. 

Psametik  II. 

Psammuthis,  Psan- 

15 

603 

mus. 

63 

VII. 

Hophra  Remesto. 

Vaphres,  Apries,  Ho - 

19 

588 

phra. 

64 

VIII. 

Aaiimes. 

Amosis,  Amasis. 

44 

569 

65 

X 

1 Psametk  III. 

Psammenitus. 

M.  6 

The  entire  Dynasty  reigned — years, 

150  6 

II. 

III. 

IV. 
V 
VI 

VII 


VIII 

IX 


XI. 

XII. 


NAMES  OF  PTOLEMIES. 


Philip  Arrid^-js,  brother  of  Alexander, 

Alexander,  son  of  Alexander, 

Ptolemy,  son  of  Lagus,  Soter, 

Berenice,  his  4th  wife,  reckoned 
in  Ptolemy’s  reign, 
Ptolemy  Philadelphds,  his  son, 

Arsinoe,  daughter  of  Lysimnchus, 
Arsinoe,  widow  of  Lysimachus, 
Ptolemy-Evergetes  I 

Berenice,  of  Cyrene, 
Ptolemy-Philopator, 

Arsinoe,  his  sister, 
Ptolemy-Epiphanes, 

Cleopatra,  of  Syria, 
Ptolemy-Philometor, 

Cleopatra,  his  sister, 

Ptolemy-Evergetes  II.  Physcon,  Cach- 
ergetes. 

Cleopatra,  widow  of  Philometor, 
Cleopatra,  Cocce, 

Ptolemy  Soter  II,  Lathyrus, 

Ptolemy  Alexander  I,  Parisactus, 

Berenice  or  Cleopatra,  Ins 

daughter, 

Ptolemy  Alexander  II., 

Ptolemy — New  Dionisius,  Aulctes, 
Berenice,  his  daughter, 
again  PTOLEMY-yln/etes, 
Cleopatra,  daughter  of  Auletes, 
Cleopatra,  and  her  son  C.*;sarion, 


The  House  of  Lagus  reigned  years 


Years 

of 

each 

Reign. 


Years 

before 

Christ. 


7 

12 

20 

39 

38 


25 

17 

24 

35 

29 


18 

18 


8 

1G 

2 

3 

8 

14 


323 

316 

304 


284 

246 

221 

204 

180 

146 

117 


81 

73 

57 

55 

49 

44 


294 


And  the  Ptolemaic  dynasty  ceased — years  B.  C.  30,  when  Egyp* 
became  a province  of  the  Roman  Empire. 


63 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


Names  of  Roman  Emperors  found  in  hieroglyphics  on  the  monu- 
ments of  Egypt. 

I.  Emperor  Cajsar  Augustus,  B.  C.  27. 


A.  D, 

11. 

K 

Tiberius  Cjesar, 

14 

III. 

Caius — Caligula — 

36 

IV. 

it 

Tiberius  Claudius  Cjbsak  Augustus 

Germanicus, 

40 

V. 

61 

Nero  Claudius  Cjesar  Augustus 

Germanicus, 

54 

VI. 

(( 

Marcus  Otiio  Caesar  Augustus, 

VII. 

(6 

Cjesar  Vespasian  Augustus, 

68 

VIII. 

«< 

Titus  Caesar  Vespasian  Augustus, 

78 

IX. 

(C 

Cjesar  Domitian  Augustus, 

81 

X. 

46 

Ca-.sar  Nerva  Trajan  Augustus, 

97 

XI. 

it 

Cjesar  Trajan  Hadrian  Augustus, 

116 

XII. 

it 

Cjesar  Titus  Elius  Adrian 

Antoninus  Augustus  Pius, 

137 

xin. 

t% 

Aurelius  Antoninus  Augustus, 

161 

XIV. 

a 

Lucius  Verus  Cjesar, 

XV. 

a 

Commoeus, 

180 

XVI. 

« 

Cjesar  Severus  Augustus, 

194 

XVII. 

a 

Cjesar  Geta  Augustus, 

XVIII. 

" 

Cjesar  Antoninus  Augustus,  (Caracalla,)  211 

Note.  Of  the  Roman  Emperors,  who  ruled  between  Augustus  and  Cara, 
calls,  the  only  names  unfound  in  hieroglyphics,  are  Galba,  Vitellius  and 
Nerva. 


Thus  from  an  indefinite  period,  prior  to  the  year  B.  C.  2272,  down 
to  about  215  years  after  the  Christian  era,  the  hieroglyphical  char- 
acter is  proved  to  have  been  in  use  ; while,  from  the  year  2272,  B. 
C.,  modem  hierology  has  determined  the  chronological  series  of 
Egyptian  monarchs,  by  the  translation  of  hieroglyphical  annals. 

The  Romans  held  Egypt  from  the  27th  year  B.  C.  till  395  A.  D. ; 
when  the  sons  of  Theodosius  the  Great  divided  the  empire  ; and 
Egypt  lingered  under  the  sovereignty  of  the  Eastern  Emperors  ; till, 
conquered  by  Aiuner-ebn-el-As,  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  became  a 
province  of  Omar’s  Saracenic  Caliphate,  in  A.  D.  540.  In  the  year 
A.  D.  1517 — Hegira  923 — Egypt  was  overrun  by  the  Ottoman  hordes 
of  Sooltin  Selefem,  and  has  ever  since  been  the  spoil  of  the  Turk  : 
but,  in  the  prophetic  “ Books  of  Hermes”  it  is  written, 

“ Et  inhabitabit  ACgyptum  Scythus,  aut  Indus,  aut  aliqma  tali*.” 


END  or  ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


ERRATA. 


Page 

28. 

2nd  Column, 

14  lines  from  top,  for  to  the  above,  read  with  the  above. 

<1 

30. 

1st. 

44 

18  “ 

“ “ “ bring  to  this  hole,  read  bring  it  to  this  hole. 

•4 

30. 

1st. 

46 

4 « 

“ bottom  for,  steamboats,  under,  read  steamboats,  that  under. 

4 

31. 

2nd. 

64 

15  “ 

“ “ “ as  well,  read  as  well  as 

4 

42. 

2nd. 

44 

11  “ 

“ “ “ with,  read  without. 

44 

43. 

lsi. 

46 

38  “ 

“ top  “ it,  read  they. 

A gentleman,  erudite  in  Hebrew  and  other  Oriental  languages,  has  kindly  suggested  the  following  emendations  to  the  Author. 

Note,  page  31 — that  the  name  of  Moses — Moshih — being  derived  from  the  Hebrew  root  “ to  draw  out,”  has  no  reference  to  the  root  “ to 
anoint.” 

Page  32 — that  the  Hebrew  root  Aur  does  not  mean  the  Sun,  bu  light,  and  Ur,  or  Oor,  signifies  flame,  splendor;  that  Urim  and  Thummim, 
are  not  duals  but  plurals,  and  should  be  rendered  “ splendors  and  perfections.” 

Page  42 — that  the  name  of  the  Thebaid — Patheos — is  not  derivable  from  the  rootPATHAR,  to  interpret;  but  probably  represente  the  Coptic 
Pethouris,  Terra  Australis,  the  Southern  land. 

Page  43 — that  the  word  Matz-za,  unleavened  bread,  is  derived  from  the  root  to  squeeze,  to  compress. 

Not  to  enter  into  an  argument,  I refer  the  optical  reader  to  Portal,  “ Les  Syjnboles  des  Egyptiene  compart  tt  ceux  des  Hebreus  ' 
Paris  1840 — and  Dr.  Dams  on  the  Hebrew  Alphabet.  London,  1835. 

* 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


67 


COPIES  OF  TESTIMONIALS,  AND  EXTRACTS  OF 
CORRESPOND  ENCE. 


To  George  R.  Gliddon,  Esq. 

Boston,  February,  4,  1843. 

Sir, — Having  attended  your  course  of  thirteen  Lectures  (some  of 
us  the  whole,  and  others,  parts  of  the  course,)  delivered  in  this  city, 
on  “ Eari.v  Egyptian  History,  Archaeology,  and  other  sub- 
jects CONNECTED  WITH  HlEROGLYPHICAL  LITERATURE,”  We  take 
this  occasion  to  express  the  high  satisfaction  we  ha  ve  experienced — 
in  ccmmon  with  your  other  auditors — in  following  you  through  the 
ir.ts’tsting  developments  made  of  your  noble  and  inexhaustible  sub- 
ject. 

It  need  not  be  remarked,  that,  until  the  present  age,  the  extraor- 
dinary history  and  antiquities  of  that  ever  memorable  country,  in  its 
earliest  periods,  have  been,  comparatively  speaking,  a tissue  of  fa- 
bles ; and,  almost  literally,  enveloped  in  that  impenetrable  darkness, 
■which  has  long  been  associated  witli  the  name  of  that  people  in  a 
familiar  proverb  ; for,  although  the  Egyptians  from  the  earliest  ages, 
like  other  nations,  had  recorded  their  great  public  events  on  their 
public  monuments,  which  are  still  extant,  yet  all  knowledge  of  the 
sanguageef  those  monuments — the  Hieroglyphic ai.  Language  of 
Egypt, — had  long  been  lost  to  the  world,  and  has  but  recently  been 
recovered  by  the  profound  researches,  which  were  instituted  in  Eng- 
land by  Young — alike  eminent  in  Science  and  Literature — and,  in 
France,  successfully  prosecuted  to  their  full  development  by  Cham- 
pollion  ; a result,  which  will  shed  a lustre  upon  the  literary  fame  of 
the  present  age,  of  no  lass  brilliancy  than  the  most  celebrated  dis- 
coveries made  in  any  of  the  fields  of  science. 

We  cannot,  therefore,  permit  the  present  occasion  to  pass,  without 
testifying  our  gratification  at  having  bad  this  opportunity  of  hearing 
the  first  course  of  Lectures,  delivered  in  this  country,  upon  the  re- 
sults of  those  profound  and  interesting  researches.  These  results 
ehed  new  light  upon  the  ea.rly  history  of  man,  by  unfolding  to  our 
view,  in  addition  to  the  knowledge  we  before  possessed  from  the 
Scriptures,  the  authentic  records  of  a great  nation,  and  of  a more 
remote  epoch,  than  the  earliest  records  of  any  people  which  the 
learned  have  hitherto  made  a subject  of  thorough  and  exact  investi- 
gation. The  impulse  now  given  to  these  studies,  will,  we  have  no 
doubt,  stimulate  many  of  our  intelligent  and  persevering  scholars, 
to  emulate  their  illustrious  European  predecessors  in  this  department 
of  knowledge  ; and,  while  they  extend  their  own  fame,  to  add  to  the 
reputation  of  their  country. 

With  our  cordial  wishes  for  your  success  in  making  known,  in  other 
parts  of  the  United  States,  the  valuable  and  interesting  results  of 
Egyptian  researches,  and  with  the  assurances  of  our  personal  regard, 
We  are,  Sir, 

Y'oui  obedient  servants, 


Jno.  Bickering, 
John  Davis, 

Win.  Jenks, 
Charles  P.  Curtis, 
S.  K.  Lothrop, 
Asa  Eaton, 

Jas.  Savage, 

I.  P.  Davis, 


Charles  Sumner, 

F.  C.  Gray, 

Jos.  W.  Ingraham, 
Alex.  Young, 

G.  S.  Hillard, 
Geo.  Hayward, 
Charles  Lowell. 


Philadelphia,  March  20th,  1844. 
To  George  R.  Gliddon,  Esq. 

Dear  Sir, — As  members  of  your  recent  class  in  this  city,  we  can- 
not deny  ourselves  the  gratification  of  returning  you  our  warmest 
thanks  for  the  pleasure  and  profit  derived  from  your  discourses.  We 
presume,  however,  that  a just  appreciation  of  the  importance  of  your 
theme,  will  prove  far  more  agreeable  to  your  feelings,  than  even  the 
richly-merited  acknowledgment  due  to  the  unvarying  urbanity  and 
kindness  of  manner,  whicli  distinguished  your  personal  intercourse 
with  your  hearers. 

Permit  us,  then,  to  thank  you  most  sincerely — rather  as  citizens  of 
rii  extensive  community  than  as  mere  individuals — for  the  efforts 
you  have  made  to  arouse  the  attention  of  the  American  public  to 
the  deeply  interesting-  subject  of  Egyptian  Archaeology. 

To  paraphrase  a familiar  Eastern  ejaculation,  “ There  is  no  Truth 
hut  Truth," — and  it  is  equally  true,  that  scepticism  is  deprived  of  all 
its  weapons  when  truth  appears,  divested  of  the  errors,  witli  which 
it  has  been  veiled  through  honest  misconceptions. 

As  Christians,  we  feel  that  the  public  is  deeply  indebted  to  you, 
for  assuming  the  critical  post  of  a pioneer,  in  the  task  of  rendering 
popular  the  constantly  accumulating  facts  by  which  Egyptian  hiero- 
glyphic history  corroborates  the  record  of  the  sacred  writers,  and 
casts  bright  sunshine  upon  ages,  institutions,  men  and  motives,  hith- 
erto but  vaguely  traced  in  the  dim,  deceptive  moonlight  of  Grecian 
and  Roman  philosophy. 

As  men,  we  have  listened  with  high  interest  to  your  expose  of  the 
state  of  learning  and  the  arts,  among  a people  antedating  all  other 
extant  history,  and  the  pure,  though  seemingly  enigmatical  moral- 
ity, which  vindicates  the  dignity  of  human  nature,  even  in  its  in- 
fancy. 


We  will  not  pause  to  make  a single  con  ment  upon  the  thousand 
interesting  questions  in  statesmanship  and  public  polity — in  the  in- 
fluence oi  governmental  systems  upon  the  destiny  of  nations — which 
start  up  in  the  minds  ot  your  hearers,  as  you  proceed,  apparently 
without  effort  or  intention  ot  y o u r own,  and  render  every  lecture 
the  subject  of  enduring  thought. 

These  things  are  far  too  grand  and  vast  for  mere  epistolary  no* 
tice;  and  we  will,  therefoie,  close  with  the  assurance,  that  public 
considerations,  not  less  than  private  gratification,  induce  us  most 
heartily  to  wish  you  a prosperous  career  elsewhere,  and  a speeBy  re- 
turn to  Philadelphia,  wheie  we  trust  the  intelligence  and  virtue  of 
the  community  will  ever  be  ready  to  welcome  you. 

We  are,  veiy  respectfully, 


James  Mease, 

Henry  W.  Ducachet, 
Peter  Vanpelt, 

C.  G.  Childs, 

David  S.  Brown, 

J.  Fisher  Learning, 

A.  D.  Chaloner, 

A.  D.  Gillette, 

Joseph  Montgomery, 
Charles  Rvan, 

Thomas  Ryan, 

John  S.  Miller, 

B.  Henry, 

Josiah  Randall, 
Samuel  Jackson, 

S.  E.  Smith, 

R.  D.  Wood, 
Lawrence  Lewis, 
Richard  C.  Taylor, 
John  J.  Smith,  Jr., 
Isaiah  Hacker, 
William  Peter, 

John  G.  Watmough, 
Thomas  Gilpin, 

A.  M.  Prevost, 
Thomas  Firth, 
William  Morrison, 

J.  S.  Phillips, 

George  W.  Aspinwall, 


G . Emerson, 

Gavin  Watson, 

Robert  Kilvington, 
James  Arrott, 

Colin  Arrott, 

Joseph  Lea,  Jr., 

B.  H.  Coates, 

R.  M.  Lewis, 

Judah  Dobson, 

W.  J.  Walter, 

H.  B.  Wallace, 

Thomas  T.  Lea, 

Thomas  Sergeant, 

M.  D.  Lewis, 

S.  W.  Roberts, 

William  Ashbridge, 
William  S.  Vaux, 
Richard  Randolph, 
Samuel  George  Morton, 
Charles  F.  Becke, 
George  Zantzingor, 
Edward  King, 

William  Zantzinger, 

W.  A.  Dobbyn, 

Joseph  S.  Lyon, 
Leonard  R.  Koecker, 

J.  H.  Markland, 

John  T.  Sharpless, 
Reynell  Coates. 


EXTRACTS  OF  CORRESPONDENCE. 

Perring, London,  1st  Sept.,  1843. 

“ Some  few  days  ago,  on  the  table  of  IL  E.  the  Chevalier  Bun- 
sen, 1 met  with  your  Lectures,  and  confess  with  some  little  surprise 
at  your  new  vocation.  I immediately  sent  down  to  Wiley  & Put- 
nam's, and  was  fortunate  enough  to  obtain  a copy,  which  1 have 
gone  over ; and  as  it  contains  your  address,  I cannot  withhold  my 
humble  tribute  of  applause.  It  is  the  first  attempt,  that  I am  aware 
of,  to  popularize  the  subject  of  hieroglvphical  literature  and  history 
in  all  its  details  and  branches;  and  the  thoroughly  masterly  manner 
in  which  you  have  executed  your  task,  (con  amore)  will  be  appre- 
ciated by  all,  and  yet  more  especially  by  those  who  have  labored  in 
the  same  field. — for  the  mass  of  valuable  information  brought  to- 
gether from  a thousand  discordant  sources,  is  truly  astonishing.” 

“ I have  recommended  your  work  to  several 

friends,  who  wish  to  know  a little  truth  on  Ancient  Egypt  and  its 
Archaeology;  and  shall  advise  all  who  visit  that  country  to  make  it 
their  study  on  the  voyage,”  &c. 

Madden,* London,  10th  Nov.,  1843. 

“I  am  very  much  pleased  with  the  work,  (Ancient  Egypt,)  for  ,t 
conveys  in  a simple  and  eloquent  style,  information  which  is  not  to 
he  procured  in  any  other  way.  It  gave  me  great  pleasure  to  find 
that  tire  American  public  appreciated  your  exertions,”  &c. 

Harris,  Alexandria,  25th  Nov.,  1843. 

“Our  friend  Mr.  A.  Tod.f  presented  me  with  your  ‘Ancient 
Egypt;  her  Monuments,  Hieroglyphics,  &c.,’  and  1 thought  you 
would  not  be  displeased  to  receive  my  congratulations  on  the  fruit 
of  your  industry  and  application,  which  must  have  been  very  great 
to  have  produced  a work  of  so  much  merit.  I have  no  doubt  you 
will  make  yourself  a name,  if  you  pursue  the  path  you  have  marked 
out  for  yourself  1 sincerely  wish  you  success,”  &c., 

Bono  mi, Pyramids  of  Gheezeh,  17th  Jan’ry.,  1844. 

“ We  are  all  very  much  pleased  with  the  efforts  you  have  been 
making  in  the  cause.  It  is,  indeed,  highly  creditable  to  you  to  nave 
produced  such  a complete  and  highly  interesting  volume  on  the  sub- 
ject. I do  not  know  any  treatise  on  the  subject  that  is  likely  to  ad- 
vance the  study  of  Egypt  so  much  as  yours.  Yfou  have  shown  the 
process  by  which  what  knowledge  we  have  has  been  acquired  ; and 
on  what  clear  and  solid  foundation  it  rests.  You  have  carried  youf 

"Madden  & Co. — Oriental  Publishers. 

\ Consul  for  the  U.  S.  in  Egypt. 


«8 


ANCIENT  EGYPT. 


reader  to  the  very  margin  of  our  knowledge  ; having  shown  him  in 
the  course  several  alleys  and  branches  of  the  great  Labyrinth  that 
are  still  unexplored,  and  stimulated  him  to  pursue  the  study  by  pi- 
quant suggestions.  In  short,  your  book  has  done  more  to  render  the 
•ubject  popular,  than  any  work  in  existence,”  &c. 

Lcriius, Kartoum,  le  29  Mars,  1844. 

(Junction  of  the  VVhite  and  Blue  Nilo.) 

" Monsieur  et  Collogue, 

M Je  me  hate  de  vous  accuser  reception  du  bulletin*  de  la  Socidte 
des  Sciences  Naturelles  de  Philadelphie,  que  vous  avez  bien  voulu 
m’  envoyer  par  l’entremise  de  Monsieur  votre  pere  Je  vois  par  cela 
que  cette  honorable  Societe  m’  a fait  l’honneur  de  mettre  mon  nom 
parmi  ses  membres  correspondants.  Bien  sensible  a cette  distinction, 
que  je  ne  saurais  expliquer  que  par  l’interet  bien  vif  que  vous  prcn- 
nez  aux  memes  etudes  auxquelles  je  me  suis  livre  de  preference,  et 
dont  vous  etes  le  reprosentant  aussi  zele  que  savant  dans  le  nouveau 
Monde,  je  vous  prie  de  vouloir  presenter  mes  humbles  remerciemens 
a.  ^honorable  Societe,  et  d’  agreer  en  meme  temps  l’expression  de 
ma  reconnaisance  envers  vous  meme,  qui  avez  bien  voulu  transferer 
l’interet  pour  les  etudes  Egyptiennes  sur  celui  qui  voudrait  les  fairo 

avancer  autant  qu’il  est  en  son  pouvoir.” “J’ai 

vu  par  la  meme  feuille  que  vous  avez  fait  un  rapport  a la  Societe 
eur  notre  Expedition  scientifique.  Je  vous  remercie  pour  l’interet 
quo  voua  y portez,”  &c. 

Lkpsius, Island  of  Philce,  15th  Sept.,  1844. 

“ J’ai  lu  avec  le  plus  grand  interet  les  sept,  premiers  chapitres  de 
▼otre  cours  sur  l’ancienne  Egypte,  et  je  suis  convaincu  que  vous  avez 
gagne  un  applause  general  et  merite  de  tous  ceux  qui  ont  eu  l’avan- 
tage  de  pouvoir  suivre  votre  cours.  J’espere  vivement  que  vous 
trouverez  le  temps  pour  continuer  vos  utiles  recherches  dans  ce 
genre  d’etudes ; qui,  malgre  la  riche  moisson  qu’  elles  promettent,  ont 
pourtant  trouve  jusqu’  a present  beaucoup  plus  d’amateurs  que  de 
travailleurs  serieux,  faute,  il  est  vrai,  en  grande  partie,  de  la  difficulty 
a rcmonter  aux  vraies  sources  de  cette  science,”  &c. 

Walsh,* Paris,  May  7th,  1844. 

“ Monsieur  J omard,  of  the  Royal  Library,  the  highest  authority 
on  Egyptian  topics” — “ rejoices  in  the  recovery  of  Mr.  Gliddon’s 
work,  which  he  accidentally  left  in  Italy  in  the  autumn,  and  means 
read  attentively  without  delay.” — National  Intelligencer.  Wash- 
ington, 20th  June,  1844. 

•Vide  Proceedings  of  the  Academy  ef  Natural  S'.ences,  July  and 
August,  1843. 

•tJ.  9 Consul,  Paris. 


Birch, British  Museum,  London,  12th  May,  1844. 

“ 1 have  read  with  much  pleasure  your  interesting  Lectures  os 
Egyptian  Antiquities,  in  the  United  States,  which  ought  to  have  the 
effect  of  awakening  the  public  attention  there  to  the  researches  go- 
ing on  in  the  Old  World.  They  have  been  very  popular  here,  as  I 
dare  say  your  publishers  (Madden  & Co.)  can  inform  you  ; and  de- 
servedly so,  since  they  place  the  matter  in  a clear  and  distinct  point 
of  view  in  all  its  bearings,”  &c. 

Lane, Cairo,  15th  July,  1844. 

“ I congratulate  you  most  sincerely  on  the  success  which  has  at- 
tended you  in  America,  and  join  with  many  others  in  thanking  you 
for  much  very  valuable  information,”  &c. 

Fresnel,* Juddah,  {Arabia,)  4th  Aug.,  1844. 

“ I am  indebted  to  your  “ Ancient  Egypt”  for  the  little  positive 
knowledge  I now  possess  on  the  subject  which  you  have  treated  with 
so  much  perspicuity,  “ verve,”  ana  “ disinvoltura.”  .... 

“ I must  now  acknowledge,  that  you  have  given  me  a real  treat  in 
nay  desert,  and  have  inspired  me  with  a lively  interest  for  a branch 
ot  science,  which  1 had  neglected  for  no  other  reason,  than  that  it 
was  not  my  own  branch,  my  own  department ; and  “ qu’  a moins 
d’etre  de  for,  (which,  you  know,  is  not  my  case,)  on  ne  peut  pas 

suffire  a tout ” Go  on,  my  dear  Sir,  and  “ agreez 

mes  sinceres  felicitations,”  &c. 

Extracts  from  the  Correspondence  of  my  Father,  A'w  late  John  Gliddon, 
U.  S.  Consul  for  Egypt. 

“ Cairo,  12th  October,  1843. — “ The  book  n characterized  here  as 
learned,  modest,  and  most  useful.”  18th  November — “Among 
the  Elite  of  Cairo  you  have  passed  the  ordeal.  Your  work  is  con- 
sidered a most  opportune  compendium,  and  a most  acceptable  vade- 
mecum.'"  14th  February,  1844. — “ Soon  afterwards  1 exchanged 
visits  with  Sir  J.  G.  Wilkinson,  and  you  will  be  gratified  to  hear, 
that  he  confirmed  all  that  had  reached  me  from  Judge  Jay  and  Mr. 
Harris  concerning  your  labors  ; and  when  I took  leave,  he  expressly 
charged  me  with  his  congratulations  and  kind  regards.”  . . . 

. . . “ Messrs.  Wilkinson,  Briggs,  Walne,  Bonomi,  Lane, 

Traill,  Lieder,  &c.,  indicate  your  work  to  all  travellers  in  search  of 
hieroglyphical  information,  and  the  consequence  is,  that  our 
‘ Chapters'  are  taken  off  the  table  of  the  ‘ Egyptian  Society,’  M it 
were,  by  the  dozen,”  &c. 


George  R.  Gliddon. 

Baltimore,  15th  March,  1845. 


•French  Consul  at  Juddah — Red  Sea. 


NEW  SERIES 

OF 

ARCH/EOLOGICAL  LECTURES  ON  ANCIENT  EGYPT, 

ILLUSTRATED  BY 

COPIOUS  AND  SPLENDID  PICTORIAL  DIAGRAMS, 


AND 

GENUINE  ANTIQUITIES, 


COMPRISING 

THE  LATEST  HIEROGLYPHICAL,  AND  COGNATE  MONUMENTAL  DISCOVERIES, 

BY 

GEORGE  R.  GLIDDON, 

Member  of  the  “Egyptian  Society”  of  Cairo — Corresponding  Member  of  the  “United  States  Naval 
Lyceum,”  Brooklyn,  New  York — Correspondent  of  the  “Academy  of  Natural  Sciences,”  Phila- 
delphia— Corresponding  Member  of  the  “National  Institute,”  Washington — Member  of 
the  “ American  Oriental  Society,”  Boston — Honorary  Member  of  the  “ His- 
torical Society  of  Pennsylvania” — Cqrresponding  Member  of  the  “ Syro- 
Egyptian  Society”  of  London — Corresponding  Member  of  the 
“Societe  Orientale  de  France” — Corresponding  Mem- 
ber of  the  “ Institute  of  Archeological 
Correspondence  of  Rome,” 

AUTHOR  OF 

“A  Memoir  on  the  Cotton  of  Egypt” — “An  Appeal  to  the  Antiquaries  of  Europe  on  the  destruction 
of  the  Monuments  of  Egypt,”  London,  1841 — “A  Series  of  Chapters  on  Early 
Egyptian  History,  Archeology,  and  other  subjects  connected  with 
Hieroglyphical  Literature,”  New  York,  1843, 

AND  FORMERLY 

UNITED  STATES  CONSUL  FOR  CAIRO,  IN  EGYPT. 


«•  Plurimas  terras  peragravi , disjunctissima  quceque  lustrans;  coeli  solique  genera  plurima  vidi , eruditos  homines 

permultos  audivi; JEgypliorum , qui  Harpedonapte  {a^mbovattrai — Clem.  Alex.  Strom.  I. 

»*ynan — |1N — nmn=HRPD— AUN— HPTE=“  Colui  che  largisce  la  veritu  della  luce;"  i.  e.  the  Illumi- 
nati— Michelangelo  Land , Paris,  1846.)  nominantur,  apud  hos  autem  postremo  multos  per  annos  pert - 
grinatus  sum." 

Democriti  Abderite  Operum  fragments— p.  228.  Ed.  Mullachius,  Berlin,  1843. 


Philadelphia,  October,  1846. 


In  announcing  his  return  to  Philadelphia,  after  a twelvemonth’s  sojourn  in  Europe,  with  the  intention  of  resuming 
his  Lectureship  throughout  the  United  States,  Mr.  Gliddon  begs  leave  to  preface  his  new  Courses  with  the  following 
remarks : 


Four  winter*  have  elapsed  since  the  writer,  whose  twenty-three 
year’s  residence  in  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  naturally  led  him  to  take 
interest  in  the  progress  of  local  researches,  commenced  (at  Boston, 
1842-3,)  in  the  novel  form  of  illustrated  and  popular  Lectures,  the 
exposition  of  those  discoveries  in  hieroglyphical  literature,  consequent 
upon  the  memorable  French  and  English  Expeditions  to  Egypt  in 
1798 — 1802,  which,  impressed  by  Napoleon’s  genius,  and  fore- 
shadowed in  the  noble  folios  “ Description  de  I’Egypte,”  have  called 
forth  in  this  second  quarter  of  the  XIXth  century  the  lavish  expen- 
ditures of  enlightened  Governments,  Societies,  and  individuals,  the 
enthusiastic  investigation  of  the  most  illustrious  Savans  of  the  age, 
and  the  intellectual  admiration  of  all  civilized  communities, 
i The  experiment  attempted  by  the  writer,  that  of  popularizing, 


through  direct  and  oral  address,  independently  of  the  patronage  or 
aid  of  Governments  or  Academies,  to  the  comprehension  of  the  edu- 
cated masses,  themes  so  fraught  with  interest  to  the  past  history  and 
future  development  of  humanity,  does  not  appear  to  have  been  tried,  in 
any  country,  since  the  Olympic  era  of  the  Halicamassinn.  To  this 
day  the  oral  exposition  of  hierogrammatical  science  is  confined  in 
Europe  to  regal  collegiate  precincts  ; and  it  is  at  Paris,  Florence,  and 
Berlin  alone  where  the  student  or  general  hearer  has  hitherto  gathered 
Egyptian  instruction  from  the  incomparable  discourses  of  a Chaw- 
polliox  le  Jbune,  a Rosellini,  a Letronne,  a Raoul-Rochitt*, 
or  a Richard  Lepsius.  In  England,  to  this  very  hour,  there  are 
no  public  lectures  whatever  on  Egyptian  Archaeology  : and  the  fact 
that  many  thousands  of  America’s  citizens  have  spontaneously  attended 


2 


Discourses  upon  Hieroglyphics,  in  some  European  circles  is  yet  un- 
believed, in  others  it  is  a topic  of  mingled  wonder  and  applause.* 

It  was  upon  the  diffusion  of  education  among  the  people  of  the 
United  States  and  their  thirst  for  knowledge,  fostered  by  Institutional 
freedom  in  this  vast  Republic,  that  the  writer,  stimulated  by  the 
advice  and  the  effective  aid  of  a few  personal  friends,  among  whom 
the  name  of  Richaiid  K.  Haight, f of  New  York,  must  always 
stand  preeminent,  grounded  his  hopes  and  calculations ; nor,  whilst  he 
merely  claimed  to  be  the  popular  expositor  of  the  profound  researches 
of  others,  without  the  slightest  pretension  to  aught  but  as  much 
fidelity  of  narrative  as  lay  within  the  compass  of  his  reach  or  abili- 
ties, has  he  ever  doubted,  that  the  inquiring  intelligence  of  the  New 
World  would  be  found  fully  equal  to  the  appreciation  of  discoveries 
that  for  half  a century  have  constituted  the  unceasing  study,  the  in- 
creasing attention,  and  the  herculean  labors  of  the  greatest  men  and 
nations  of  the  Old. 

Such  was  the  wri  er’s  conception  when  he  lauded  in  America  in 
January,  1842.  Three  successive  winters,  1842-3,  1843-4,1844-5, 
of  practical  experience  have  demonstrated,  that,  so  far  as  the  broad 
principle  of  American  intellectual  cultivation  be  concerned,  he  has  not 
in  his  anticipations  been  mistaken.  His  Lectures  upon  Egyptian 
Hierology  have  been  consecutively  listened  to  by  audiences  embracing 
many  thousands  of  the  population,  from  Portsmouth,  N.  H.,  to  Sa- 
vannah, Goo.,  including  repeatedly  the  larger  Atlantic  Cities,  Boston, 
New  York,  Brooklyn,  Philadelphia,  Baltimore,  Washington,  Rich- 
mond and  Charleston  ; while,  at  Boston,  his  course  of  12  Lectures 
on  Egyptian  Archaeology,  repeated,  before  the  “ Lowell  Institute”  in 
1843-4,  was  attended  by  above  five  thousand  persons.  The  sale,  in 
less  than  three  years,  of  18,000  copies  of  the  Chapters,  presented 
gratuitously  by  the  Author  to  the  American  Public,  and  the  una- 
bated demand  for  new  impressions  of  this  Introduction  to  the  study 
of  Hieroglyphics,}:  are  sterling  facts  in  proof  of  the  popular  desire 
manifested  by  the  public  of  the  United  States,  to  become  familiar 
with  those  splendid  results  and  triumphant  discoveries  that  insure 
immortality  to  the  School  founded  by  Champollion. 

Taking  our  departure  from  the  “ Precis  du  Systeme  Hierogly- 
phique  des  Anciens  Egyptiens,”  put  forth  by  Champollion  le 
Jeune,  at  Paris  in  1824,  we  can  now  realize,  after  the  toils  of  twenty- 
two  years,  the  resuscitation,  from  the  tomb  of  fifteen  centuries,  of  the 
language  of  the  long-buried  denizens  of  Egypt,  and  witness  in  the 
year  1846  the  facile  translation,  by  living  French,  English,  German, 
and  Italian  Hierologists,  of  any  and  all  monumental  legends,  Paint- 
ings, Sculptures  and  Papyri,  scattered  along  the  “ Sacred  River,” 
from  the  shores  of  the  Mediterranean  to  the  confluence  of  the  White 
and  Blue  Niles  beyond  the  far-famed,  if  modern  Meroe,  on  the  torrid 
confines  of  Nigritia.  And  beholding,  as  we  now  do  with  our  own 
eyes,  the  progressive  reconstruction  of  the  time-honored  edifice  of 
Pharaonic  antiquity,  from  autochthonous  records  with  the  events 
themselves  coetaneous,  our  minds  have  awakened  to  the  comprehen- 
sion of  the  reason  why  the  advancement  of  a given  country  in 
Egyptian  learning  has  become,  as  it  were,  the  standard  measure  of 
its  literary  reputation  in  archaeological  and  cognate  sciences. 

Spurred  to  emulation,  under  the  penalty  of  being  distanced  in  the 
race,  by  the  glorious  example  of  France,  the  Governments  of  Tus- 
cany, Prussia  and  England,  and  many  of  the  less  affluent  states  of 
Italy  and  Germany,  have  latterly  been  sending  Commission  after 
Commission  to  explore  and  re-explore  the  venerable  Ruins  of 
“ Afitzraim,” or  are  collecting  and  depositing  under  the  ffigis  of  Euro- 
pean security,  in  gigantic  national  Museums,  the  hoary  vestiges  of 
primeval  Nilotic  civilization.  Lkp-ius  and  the  Prussians  have  but  just 
returned  from  Egypt  and  Ethiopia,  laden  with  treasures  gathered  du- 
ring three  years  of  unequalled  and  most  successful  laboriousness — and 
yet,  Piiisse,  chief  of  a new  Scientific  Mission,  is  on  the  point  of  re- 
turning from  Paris  to  the  same  inexhaustible  regions,  in  order  that 
French  science  may  still  maintain  its  preeminence  in  the  march  of 
hieroglyphical  discovery. 


Paris,  London,  Berlin,  St.  Petersburgh,  Leyden,  Amsterdam,  Stock 
holm,  Copenhagen,  Munich,  Vienna,  Turin,  Milan,  Florence,  Rome, 
and  Naples,  independently  of  minor  cities  and  of  countless  private 
cabinets  in  Europe  and  Egypt,  boa6t  at  the  present  day  of  Egyptian 
antiquarian  possessions,  to  obtain  and  to  preserve  some  of  which  mil- 
lions of  dollars  have  been  expended,  and  each  city  rejoices  in  tho 
noble  rivalry  of  its  respective  hieroglyphical  students  to  decipher 
and  expound  fragments,  whose  no-longer  recondite  meaning  serves 
to  illumine  every  department  of  human  knowledge.  “As  regards 
those  eminent  men  who  have  won  a brilliant  place  in  the  career  of 
Egyptian  studies,  it  is  out  of  the  question  here  to  analyze  their  books ; 
it  suffices  that  it  should  be  known  that  all  have  marched  boldly 
along  the  road  opened  by  Champollion,  and  that  the  science  which 
owed  its  first  illustration  to  Young,  to  the  Champollions,  to  the 
Humboldts,  to  Salvolini,  to  Rosellini,  to  Nestor  L’hote,  and  of  which 
the  reality  has  been  proclaimed  without  reservation  by  Sylvestre  de 
Sacy  and  by  Arago,  counts  at  this  day  as  adepts  fervent  and  convinced 
men*  such  as  Messrs.  Letronne,  Ampere,  Biot,  Merimee,  Prisse,  E. 
Burnouf,  Lepsius,  Bunsen,  Peyron,  Gazzera.Baruechi,  ****•», 
Leemans,”  Pauthier,  Lanci,  Birch,  Wilkinson,  Harris,  Cullimore’ 
Sharpe,  Hincks,  Osburn,  Bonomi,  &c.,  &c.  “ The  friends  and  the 

enemies  of  Champollion’s  system  are  now  well  known.”|  “ Tant  pis 
pour  qui  ne  se  rangera  pas  avec  ces  hommes  celebres  du  cote  de 
l’evidence  et  de  la  justice.”} 

The  specification  of  the  works,  national  and  individual,  published 
and  forthcoming  from  the  press  of  Europe  on  Hierological  Literature, 
Chronology,  History,  ArU,  Sciences,  and  Philosophy,  would  alone’ 
swell  a quarto  volume,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  subjoined  list  of 
Authors,  whose  researches  have  been  consulted  in  the  preparation  of 
Mr.  Gliddon’s  Lectures,  and  whose  works  are  to  be  found,  on  this 
side  of  the  water,  in  the  private  library  of  Mr.  Haight  at  New 
York,  to  the  munificence  and  friendship  of  whom  the  writer  owes  the 
advantage  of  access  to  this  unique  archaeological  collection.  And  yet, 
withal,  if  in  transatlantic  America,  space,  time,  and  the  nature  of 
things,  have  hitherto  precluded  similar  pecuniary  efforts  to  keep  pace 
with  the  antiquarian  ambition  of  European  communities,  it  is  a 
fact,  as  remarkable  in  itself  as  easy  of  demonstration,  that  there  is  a 
more  widely-diffused  and  general  knowledge  of  the  progress  of  Egyp- 
tian discovery,  and  a more  popular  desire  manifested  to  possess 
correct  ideas  upon  the  results  of  Egyptological  inquiry,  than  in  many 
parts  of  Europe,  where  the  public  mind  still  lies  torpid  in  the  very 
midst  of  the  discoveries  and  the  discoverers:  and  it  was  to  quality  him- 
self for  the  better  development  ot  these  subjects,  in  the  endeavor  to  do 
justice  to  this  growing  desire,  that  the  writer,  suspending  his  Lectures 
during  the  last  winter,  proceeded  to  Europe  to  collect,  by  personal 
application  at  the  fountain  sources  of  Paris  and  London,  the  most 
authentic  materials,  and  the  latest  hieroglyphical  discoveries. 

During  five  month’s  residence  at  the  French  metropolis  with  Mn. 
Haight,  whose  intimacy  with  many  of  the  most  distinguished  Savans 
and  Societies  of  France  afforded  to  the  writer  an  infinitude  of  plea- 
surable advantages;  availing  himself  of  the  influential  kindness  of  his 
accomplished  friend  Mr.  Robert  Walsh,  U.  States  Consul,  to  whom 
he  is  indebted  for  manifold  facilities  ; and  happy  in  the  auspicious 
rencontre  with  his  old  Cairo-colleagues  and  Eastern  fellow-travel- 
lers, Prisse, § the  rescuer  (from  otherwise  inevitable  perdition  had  it 
remained  at  Thebes)  of  the  “Ancestral  Hall  of  Karnac,”  Fresnel  ,1 
the  decipherer  of  the  Himyaritic  Inscriptions  of  Southern  Arabia, 
and  Botta, 1 the  resuscitator  of  time-interred  Nineveh,  who  took 
pleasure  in  explaining  their  several  discoveries,  and  in  introducing 
him  to  their  respective  scientific  friends,, the  writer  has  enjoyed  from 
the  liberal  and  frank  complaisance  of  the  Savans  of  France  so  many 
favours,  that  in  his  present  inability  to  express  to  each  his 
grateful  obligations,  he  must  content  himself  by  italicizing  among 
the  following  authorities  quoted  in  his  lectures,  the  names  of  those 
to  whose  personal  kindness  he  is  most  indebted,  as  well  in  London 
as  at  Paris. 


Abeken,  Ampere,  Barucchi,  Biot,  Birch,  Biickh,  Bonomi,  Botta,  Boudin,  Bunsen,  Burton,  Cahen,  Cailleaud,  Champollion - 
Figeac,  Cherubini,  Cottrell , Cullimore,  D' Avczac,  D’ Eichthal,  Dc  Saulcy,  Felix,  Flandin , Fresnel,  Gazzera,  Goury,  Hamilton, 
Harris,  Hengstenberg,  Henry,  Hincks,  Hodgson,  Horeau , Hoskins,  Jomard,  Jones,  Lanci,  Lane,  Leemans,  Lenormant,  Lcpsius , 
Lcsueur,  Letronne,  L:Hote,  Linant,  Matter,  Migliarini,  Morton,  Munke,  Osburn,  Parthey,  Pauthier,  Perring,  Pettigrew,  Peyron, 
Portal,  Prichard,  Prisse,  Prudhoe,  Quatremere,  Raoul-Rochette,  Rosellini,  Salt,  Salvolini,  Schwarze,  Sharpe,  Tattam,  Taylor, 
Ungarelli,  Vcncl,  Vyse,  Wilkinson,  Young,  &c.  &c.  &c. 


A constant  attendant  during  the  winter  at  the  invaluable  “ Cours 
d’Archeologie  Egyptienne”  of  Letronne  at  the  College  de  France, 
and  of  Raoul-Rochette  at  the  Bibliotheque  Royale,  and  a frequent 

♦Vide — Revue  rfc*  Deux  mondes , June  15,  1846  ; De  Satjlcy,  “ De  1’Etude 
des  Hieroglyphes — and  August  1,  1816,  Ampere,  “ Rrcherches  en  Egjpte  et 
en  Nubie.”  Conferre  likewise.  Southern  Literary  Messenger,  Richmond, 
Virginia,  July,  1815, — “ A Sketch  of  the  progress  of  Archeological  Science  in 
America;”  and  the  Reports  aud  Notices  of  Mr.  Gliddon’s  Lectures  in  the  Ame- 
rican Press  for  the  last  four  years,  particularly  in  the  Boston  Transcript , Phi- 
ladelphia Ledger , and  Baltimoie  Sun. 

t See  De  Saulcifs  article  above  quoted — page  989.  Gliddon’s  Chapters , 
New  York,  1843;  Morton’s  Crania  JEgyptiact l,  Philadelphia,  1844;  and  Jar- 
vis’ Introduction  to  the  History  of  the  Chur  ch,  New  York,  1845. 

}The  present  Proprietors  of ‘‘Ancient  Egypt,  her  Monuments , Hierogly • 
phlcs,  History  and  Archdeols^y,}}  arc  Taylor  8c  Co.,  No.  2,  Astor  House,  r*ew 
York— Price  25cts. 


♦Aside  from  heartfelt  gratitude  for  kindnesses  innumerable  with  which  du* 
ring  the  last  four  years,  this  amiable  and  erudite  gentleman  honored  the  Wri- 
ter, justice  to  the  illustrious  departed  demands,  that  the  revered  name  of  an 
American  Suvan,  the  late  John  Pickering  of  Boston,  should  not*be  omitted  in 
designating  the  earliest  and  most  qualified  appreciators  of  the  deeds  of  Young 
and  Champollion.  See,  besides  many  anterior  papers,  “Journo!  of  the  American 
Oriental  Society” — No.  1,  Boston,  1843.  Nor,  among  living  occidental  students 
who  are  successfully  applying  hieroglyphical  discoveries  to  the  enlargement  of 
science,  must  we  forget  Messrs.  Samuel  George  Morton  of  Philadelphia, 
Coiien  and  McCulloh  of  Baltimore,  Hodgson  of  Savannah,  Charles  Picker 
ING  of  Boston,  and  Nott  of  Mobile. 

t De  Saulcy,  the  decipherer  of  the  Phcenician  Monument  of  Thr/gga,  and  <>. 
the  Egyptian  Demotic  Texts — Revue  des  deux  mondes,  June,  1846-  p.’ 383. 
t Ampere— ut  supra—  p.  392. 

$ Conferre  Revue  Archtologique — Paris,  Avril,  1845; 
fl  “ Journal  Asiatique — Paris.  1846. 

..5,  *'  Lettres  de  M.  Botta  stir  ses  D6couvcrtcs  d Khorsabad,  pre*  de 
Ninive  D^ns,  1845.  M.  Botta  is  the  son  of  the  celebrated  Italian  author  vi 
“Stona  dell’  Independeaza  dell’  America.” 


3 


■visiter  of  the  several  Museums  and  Libraries  that  adorn  the  “World’s 
centre  of  science,”  the  writer  has  received  instruction  on  subjects  that 
heretofore  lay  beyond  his  attainment,  and  which  he  will  endeavour 
to  embody  in  his  future  American  discourses.  The  summer  of  his 
absence  was  spent  in  studies  in  London, where,  guided  by  the  generous 
and  inestimable  counsel  of  Birch,  the  English  hierologist  “par 
excellence,”  the  writer  prepared  those  essays  with  which  he  pro- 
poses to  commence  his  present  Courses  in  this  country;  whilst  the 
encouraging  countenance  of  H.  E.  Ohev.  Bunsen,  who  graciously 
permitted  his  perusal  of  the  English  MS.  translation  of  the  “iE gyp- 
tens  stelle  in  der  Weltgeschichte,”  forthcoming  from  the  accomplished 
pen  of  Mn.  Cottrell  ; and  more  than  all,  the  personal  rencontre  with 
Un.  Lepsius,  fresh  from  the  regions  of  his  stupendous  Nilotic  discove- 
ries, are  episodes  in  the  writer’s  wanderings  as  grateful  to  his  indivi- 
dual feelings,  as  of  durable  value  to  the  accuracy  of  the  scientific  facts 
that  will  be  promulgated  through  his  public  lectures. 

To  sum  up  in  a few  words.  He  has  had  free  access  in  London 
and  Paris  to  MSS.,  documents,  books  and  portfolios,  and  has  received 
verbal  and  epistolary  communication  of  various  archaeological  mate- 
rials, many  far  in  advance  of  European  publication,  and  of  some  that 
will  not  be  forthcoming  ritr  years.  He  has  brought  with  him  the 


most  recent  works,  plates,  &c.,  bearing  upon  Egyptology — more 
than  half  of  which  have  not  before  been  introduced  into  the 
United  States.  He  has  established  relations  with  London,  Paris 
and  Berlin,  that  will  insure  him  the  most  rapid  intimation  of  all 
future  Egyptian  “Nouveautes  Archeologiques,”  while  by  correspon- 
dence with  the  several  students  of  hierology  throughout  Egypt  ar.d 
Europe,  he  is  promised  permanent  support  and  prompt  communi- 
cation of  the  freshest  intelligence.  Through  the  considerate  friend- 
ship of  the  learned  hierologist,  Mn.  A.  C.  Harris,  of  Alexandria, 
he  already  possesses  the  nucleus  of  such  a collection  of  Egyptian 
Antiquities  as  will  serve  to  illustrate  his  oral  Lectures  with  genuine 
specimens  of  Ancient  Art.  Part  of  this  collection,  bearing  chiefly 
upon  the  mummification  and  funereal  ceremonies  of  Egypt,  has 
already  arrived,  and  the  remainder  is  in  process  of  collection  and 
shipment  to  the  United  States.  These  curious  Telics  will  lend  a 
more  popular  interest  to  the  discourses  which  he  contemplates  deliver- 
ing in  the  larger  cities  of  the  United  States,  and  the  following  sum- 
mary catalogue  will  afford  an  idea  of  the  number,  variety,  and  cost- 
liness of  tho  Pictorial  Illustrations  that  will  embellish  the  writer’s 
Lecture-rooms,  and  elucidate  each  question  as  it  occurs — 


BRILLIANTLY  COLORED,  AND  COVERING  MANY  THOUSAND  SQUARE  FEET  OF  SURFACE. 


Hievoglyphical,  Hieratic,  Enchorial,  Greek  and  Roman  Texts,  Tablets,  Steles,  Inscriptions,  &c.,  from  the  Sculptures,  Paintings 
and  Papyri,  including  the  Rosetta  Stone,  the  Funereal  Ritual,  the  Turin  Genealogical  Papyrus,  the  Tablet  of  Abydns,  the  Anceslru. 
Chamber  of  Karnac,  the  Zodiac  of  Dendera,  and  all  important  historical  documents  of  the  Egyptians  from  the  earliest  times  to  the 
Christian  era.  A complete  series  of  all  the  Pyramids,  aud  pyramidal  monuments  of  Memphis,  &c.  Panoramic  views  of  the 
Temples,  Palaces,  and  remarkable  Tombs,  in  Egypt  and  Nubia — Tableaux  embracing  the  entire  series  of  documents  and  paintings 
illustrating  the  arts,  sciences,  manners,  customs  and  civilization  of  the  Ancient  Egyptians — Plates  illustrative  of  the  art  of 
embalmment,  human  and  animal,  Sarcophagi,  Mummies,  funeral  cerements,  ornaments,  and  doctrinal  features  of  Nilotic  Sepulture — 
besides  genuine  specimens  of  a great  variety  of  the  Antiquarian  Relics  themselves — Fac-simile  copies  of  themost  splendid  Tableaux  found 
in  the  Temples  and  Tombs  along  the  Nile — Portraits  of  the  Pharaohs  in  their  chariots,  and  royal  robes— Queens  of  Egypt  in  their 
varied  and  elegant  costumes — Likenesses  of  48  Sovereigns  of  Egypt,  from  Amunoph  the  1st,  about  B.  C.  1800,  down  to  the  Ptolemies, 
and  ending  with  Cleopatra,  B.  C.  29,  taken  from  the  Sculptures — Priests  and  Priestesses  offering  to  all  the  Deities  of  Egyptian 

Mythology Battle  scenes  on  the  Monuments  of  every  epoch— Egyptian,  Asiatic  and  African  Ethnology,  elucidating  the  conquests, 

maritime  and  caravan  intercourse,  commerce  and  political  relations  of  the  Egyptians  with  Nigritia,  Abyssinia,  Libya,  Canaan, 
Palestine,  Phoenicia,  Syria,  Arabia,  Mesopotamia,  Asia  Minor,  Persia,  Central  Asia,  &c.  &c. — Crania  jEgyptiaca — Negros  and  other 
African  families,  of  every  epoch — Scenes  supposed  to  relate  to  the  Hebrew  captivity,  &c. — Processions  of  Foreign  Nations  tributary  to  the 

Pharaohs Plans,  geographical  maps,  topographical  charts  and  paintings,  exhibiting  the  Country  and  the  Architecture  of  Egypt.  In 

short,  Diagrams  of  every  kind,  illustrating  every  variety  of  Egyptian  subjects,  during  a period  of  human  history  far  exceeding  3000 
years,  and  terminating  with  the  Romans  in  the  Hid  century  A.  D. — Tothese  will  be  added  each  and  every  newly-discovered  subject 
of  interest  as  it  presents  itself  in  future  explorations;  together  with  all  the  most  valuable  hierogrammatical  Books  which  are  or  may 
be  published  in  elucidation  of  the  philology,  &c.  &c.,  of  Egypt,  so  that  in  no  department  of  Egyptian  science  will  the  critical  or 
cursory  attendant  on  Air.  Gliddon’s  Lectures  find  any  desideratum  wanting. 


For  the  subjects  chosen  as  the  themes  of  the  writer’s  future  discourses,  | 
and  for  relative  specifications  of  time,  place,  terms,  &c.  reference  is 
made  lo  the  Daily  Papers,  no  less  than  to  the  Programmes,  which 
will  announce  with  all  details,  in  each  city,  the  several  Courses  of 
Egyptian  archeological  lectures  Mr.  Gliddon  is  preparing  to  deliver 
in  due  order  and  season. 

And  finally,  Mr.  Gliddon  must  ever  refer  the  curious  who  desire 
more  critical  information  on  Egyptian  literature  than  can  be  embo- 
died in  desultory  and  popular  lectures,  to  the  little  pamphlet,  “ An- 
cient Egypt,”  (with  the  sale  of  which  the  author,  having  presented 
it  to  the  public,  never  had  any  pecuniary  connexion,)  wherein,  for 
the  insignificant  cost  of  25  cents,  the  general  reader  can  glean  the 
history  of  hieroglvphical  studies,  together  with  the  works  to  be  con- 
sulted, up  to  the  close  of  1842.  Since  that  year,  as  Mr.  Gliddon 
will  explain  in  his  oral  lectures,  discovery  has  been  proceeding  with 
giant  strides.  During  the  last  four  years  the  aspect  of  primeval  his- 
tory, owing  mainly  to  Lepsius,  has  undergone  great  changes.  The 
advance  made  in  monumental  Chronology,  has  superseded  much, 
and  has  greatly  extended  portions  of  those  views  of  antiquity  here- 
tofore followed  by  the  Champollion-School,  based  upon  the  arrange- 
ment of  Rosellini  for  dates  prior  to  the  commencement  of  the  18th 
Dyn.of  Diospolitans,  taken  by  modem  hierologists  at  the  16th  to 
18th  centuries  before  our  Christian  era.  These  points  have  formed 
the  critical  study  of  the  writer,  and  their  consideration  will  not  be 
omitted  in  his  contemplated  lectures,  which  will  be  found  to  keep 


pace  with  the  continual  development  of  hicroglyphical  researches. 
The  era  of  Menes,  the  first  Pharaoh  of  Egypt,  that  in  Mr.  Gliddon’s 
Chapters  of  1842,  was  estimated  approximately  at  B.  C.  2750,  a date 
which  the  writer’s  subsequent  lectures  on  the  Pyramids  showed  to 
be  no  longer  tenable,  has  receded  into  the  gloom  of  primordial  time  : 
nor  until  Lepsics  publishes  at  Berlin  in  the  ensuing  winter  the 
results  of  his  discoveries  fin  Das  Buell  der  Hilgyptischen  Konige,  cine 
chronologische  Zusammenstellung  aller  Namen  der  HJgyptisehen 
Konige  und  ihrer  Verwandtschaft,  von  der  Gotterdynastie  und 
Menes  an  bis  Caracalla,)  is  it  possible  to  do  more  than  treat  in  gene- 
ral terms  of  the  remote  epochs  of  the  first  XII  Dynastic*  of  Manetho 
(See  Table  of  Dynasties,  Chapters,  p.  49.)  This  important  question 
of  the  Manethonian  Dynasties  was  made  the  subject  of  a Concours 
by  the  “Academie  dcs  Inscriptions  et  Belles-Lettres.”*  Monsieur 
Lesuf/ur  in  the  present  summer  has  had  the  distinguished  honor  ol 
winning  the  prize,  but  as  his  work  had  not  appeared  last  August, 
the  writer  is  enabled  only  to  mention  that  M.  L.  informed  him  ver- 
bally that  his  results  for  the  era  of  Menes  reach  the  58th  cen- 
tury B.  C. 

■Similar  erudite  opinions  on  the  involved  question  of  the  first 
Egyptian  Pharaoh  have  long  been  familiar  to  the  readers  of  Cham- 
pollion-Figeac,  Lexormant,  and  other  continental  hierologists. 
The  following  new  works  of  the  day  point  out  the  pending  state 
of  hierological  inquiry  into  the  primeval  ages  of  humanity,  viz : 

Date  of  Menes. 


Bockh — Berlin,  1845,” — Manetho  und  die  Hundssternperiode,” 

Henry — Paris,  1846, — L’Egypte  Pharaonique,” 

Barucchi, — Turin,  1845, — “Discorsi  critici  sopra  la  Chronologia  Egizia,” 
Bunsen, — Hamburg,  1845, — “ iEgyptens  Stelle  in  der  Weltgeschichte,” 


Years  B.  C.  5702 
“ “ 5303 

“ “ 4890 

“ “ 3643 


• “ paire  1’  examen  critique  de  la  succession  del  dynasties  6gyptlennes,  d’  aprds  les  (elites  historiques  et  lee  monmnens  nationaux.”— Paris,  lf44 


4 


' The  discussion  of  the  relative  nature  and  claims  of  the  above  and 
other  works  is  reserved  for  the  proposed  Lectures,  with  the  sole  re- 
mark, that  while  he  will  adopt  for  common  chronological  purposes 
the  minimum  system  of  Chev.  Bunsen,  the  writer  is  aware,  owing 
to  the  hints  generously  supplied  him  by  Dr.  Lepsius,  that  the  extra- 
ordinary facts  and  unexpected  discoveries  resulting  from  the  recent 
Prussian  explorations  around  the  Pyramids  of  Memphis  (effected  by 
Dr.  Lepsius  since  Chev.  Bunsen’s  “ Egypt’s  place  in  the  World’s 
History,”  went  to  press,)  will  carry  the  age  of  Mf.nes  some  centuries 
beyond  B.  C.  3643,  backed  by  the  incontrovertible  testimony  of  the 
Pyramidal  monuments. 


Awaiting,  in  common  with  the  universal  public,  the  forthcoming 
historical  revelations  of  the  Prussian  Scientific  Mission,  the  critical 
investigations  of  Mr.  Birch  in  England,  and  the  future  discoveries 
of  M.  Prisse  in  Egypt,  the  writer  takes  this  opportunity  to  an- 
nounce for  publication,  next  year,  the  following  work,  wherein  the 
whole  of  these  Egyptian  data,  being  the  most  authentic  and  ancient 
portion  of  the  history  of  Thirty-Three  Nations,  from  China  to  Iceland 
inclusive,  will  receive  embodiment : 


CHKONOS. 


OUTLINE 

OF 

A GRAND  CHRONOLOGICAL  ATLAS, 

PRESENTING 

THE  PARALLEL  HISTORIES 

OF  THE 

EAST  AND  THE  WEST, 

OR 

A SYNOPTICAL  AND  SYNCHRONOUS 
TABULATION 


OF 

ORIENTAL  and  OCCIDENTAL 

EVENTS, 

FROM  THE  EARLIEST  HIES  TO  THE  DEATH  OF  NAPOLEON. 

(Based  upon  the  latest  Geological,  Geographical,  Ethnological,  Archaeological,  Monumental, 
Biblical,  and  other  researches,  and  covering  above  400  Pages,  folio. 


OFFERED 


TO  THE 

CITIZENS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 


BY 

HENRY  YENEL, 

(CITIZEN  OF  SWITZERLAND,) 

AS  A TRIBUTE  OF  ADMIRATION  AND  RESPECT. 


Translated  from  the  Author’s  original  and  unpublished  French  Manuscript,  and 

Edited,  with  annotations,  by 


GEORGE  R.  GLIDDON 


•*++++*00000000  f 


Prospet  iuses  with  all  explanatory  details  will  be  issued  as  soon  as  the  arrangements  for  publication  are 
adequately  matured. 


